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.

 

Italian scientist reproduces Shroud of Turin

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   
The holy shroud has portions that were burned in a fire in the church where it was stored. Those areas were patched in the middle ages after the fire by some nuns. The samples that were carbon dated were from the cloth that was sewn in to repair the burned areas.

Not even NASA can figure out how the image was created.

The bacteria that are slowly encasing the fibers of the holy shroud in plastic can also alter the dating process.

The father of Carbon 14 dating disputes the results.

Believe what you want. I have a life sized image of the shroud and it looks real to me.




posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Lister87
 





Again i ask, how can anyone ever prove it was Jesus' though? IF it's proved to be from the correct era, even then, it could be of any man at all,


Dude, when it comes to the jesus delusion people will make things fit, if the shroud had the name jesus written on it, this would still be no evidence of anything.

You are correct to point out that the image is of a bearded man nothing more, how the image was made is debatable and when it was made is totally irrelevant.

Here's a couple of jesus' that the shroud could also have depicted.

Jesus ben Phiabi,
Jesus ben Sec,
Jesus ben Damneus
Jesus ben Gamalie
Jesus ben Sirach.
Jesus ben Pandira.
Jesus ben Ananias.
Jesus ben Saphat
Jesus ben Gamala
Jesus ben Thebuth.

And these are just some that made the headlines

We also recently learned of the tomb of Jesus son of joseph which has also been rejected by xtianity as their boy.

So who was the real jesus ? Even Saint Paul makes reference to a rival magician, preaching ‘another Jesus’ (2 Corinthians 11,4) (Although there is no more evidence for St Paul being a real person than there is jesus !)

How about this jesus dude he seems to fit the bill -

Jesus ben Stada
He met his end in the town of Lydda (twenty five miles from Jerusalem) at the hands of a Roman crucifixion crew. And given the scale that Roman retribution could reach – at the height of the siege of Jerusalem the Romans were crucifying upwards of five hundred captives a day before the city walls – dead heroes called Jesus would (quite literally) have been thick on the ground. Not one merits a full-stop in the great universal history.

So which Jesus was the jesus of Nazareth ? Well That complicates things even further -

At the time that Joseph and the pregnant Mary are said to have gone off to Bethlehem for a supposed Roman census, Galilee (unlike Judaea) was not a Roman province and therefore ma and pa would have had no reason to make the journey.

Even if Galilee had been imperial territory, history knows of no ‘universal census’ ordered by Augustus (nor any other emperor) – and Roman taxes were based on property ownership not on a head count. Then again, we now know that Nazareth did not exist before the second century.

So where does this leave the shroud of Turin ?
A very interesting image of a man on a piece of cloth, who the man was is no more discernible or important than who was the Mona Lisa, nothing but a clever piece of art, or ( if a shroud) interesting chemistry.


[edit on 6-10-2009 by moocowman]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by Lister87
 





Again i ask, how can anyone ever prove it was Jesus' though? IF it's proved to be from the correct era, even then, it could be of any man at all,


Dude, when it comes to the jesus delusion people will make things fit,
Conversely, there are some that would do anything to make it unfit. It could have his name, address, next of kin, and a picture of him drunk at the yearly Sukkot festival and people would still spend countless dollars to figure out how someone might have faked it.


if the shroud had the name jesus written on it, this would still be no evidence of anything.


Untrue. Archaeology is the investigative study of the past. It would prove that someone named Jesus may have owned the cloth and he was quite possibly Greek and had a similar name to a historic figure. If the cloth had "Samuel" written on it then it would be the burial shroud of some guy named Samuel and that would have been the end of the story.



Here's a couple of jesus' that the shroud could also have depicted.

Jesus ben Phiabi,
Jesus ben Sec,
Jesus ben Damneus
Jesus ben Gamalie
Jesus ben Sirach.
Jesus ben Pandira.
Jesus ben Ananias.
Jesus ben Saphat
Jesus ben Gamala
Jesus ben Thebuth.

And these are just some that made the headlines


That if put to the same "test" as Jesus ben Pantera would be under scrutiny of ever having existed at all.


We also recently learned of the tomb of Jesus son of joseph which has also been rejected by xtianity as their boy.


Christianity rejected this? Wow. No one sent me the memo. I'm always so behind on these things. There is a dispute among scholars of the DNA evidence, in the case of historical Jesus (aka "Jesus") there is more scrutiny and the slightest shade off kills the deal, unlike if it were your pal Jesus ben Thebuth or Joe the Plumber.


So who was the real jesus ? Even Saint Paul makes reference to a rival magician, preaching ‘another Jesus’ (2 Corinthians 11,4) (Although there is no more evidence for St Paul being a real person than there is jesus !)


Not true. There is actually a lot of data that has not been synthesized as yet. Moreover, this can be debated separately another day as it is too large a topic and an OT for a thread about the Shroud. As for "better" evidence, mark my words that by the end of 2011 (save my post) you will see that this is not the case.

Again, if Jesus were not worshipped as a god this wouldn't even be up for question given the amount of information we have, it would have been just a check on a list. In my opinion, the figure should be treated as any other individual from the ancient world, but everyone has a dog in the fight and it is very chic to say that he didn't exist, but is it valid?


How about this jesus dude he seems to fit the bill -

Jesus ben Stada
He met his end in the town of Lydda (twenty five miles from Jerusalem) at the hands of a Roman crucifixion crew. And given the scale that Roman retribution could reach – at the height of the siege of Jerusalem the Romans were crucifying upwards of five hundred captives a day before the city walls – dead heroes called Jesus would (quite literally) have been thick on the ground. Not one merits a full-stop in the great universal history.


That is based on a bias account. Those poor Romans *shakes head* always picked upon as aggressors. All they wanted to do was bring running water and flushing toilets to the world and then they get this treatment...



At the time that Joseph and the pregnant Mary are said to have gone off to Bethlehem for a supposed Roman census, Galilee (unlike Judaea) was not a Roman province and therefore ma and pa would have had no reason to make the journey.


Not entirely true. We can take this to another thread because now the waters are becoming mudied with OT posts.


Even if Galilee had been imperial territory, history knows of no ‘universal census’ ordered by Augustus (nor any other emperor) – and Roman taxes were based on property ownership not on a head count.


Not true again. Look up why tax collectors were actually hated. People with the seal of Rome in many provinces would hit people up for money.


Then again, we now know that Nazareth did not exist before the second century.
*sigh* How do "we" know this? I don't mean what book or web page you got this out of. I mean the methodology for how they derived this. Was there a gaping void where the region existed with a "DO NOT ENTER LEST YOU FALL INTO A WORMHOLE" sign in front of it? Or was it a region with a different name?


So where does this leave the shroud of Turin ?
A very interesting image of a man on a piece of cloth, who the man was is no more discernible or important than who was the Mona Lisa, nothing but a clever piece of art, or ( if a shroud) interesting chemistry.


Moocow, I believe you are quite well read and intelligent, but you are not a subject matter expert in this field. You may read the work of subject matter experts, but realize that you are reading the work of people who are published in book form or have created a web site. Like with Alex Jones and others, controversy wins. Most HJ scholars (note that I said Historical Jesus versus theological) are not quite so dismissive. Go to a conference and listen to them speak when in peer.

I am not saying it is the image of Jesus in the cloth. Not in the least. I am refuting the points and direction of your post, and questioning the motivation. Just as I would not trust the Pope to give me a fair accounting knowing his inclinations I cannot exactly trust someone who has "I don't hate Christians I just hate what they do" as their tagline. You are hardly impartial and also seek to fit what you desire into the evidence.


[edit on 6-10-2009 by A Fortiori]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 


If the images is real, has anyone perhaps DNA tested the blood on the shroud? You to see if it is actually blood or paint? I think that would be the first place to start.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by kiwifoot
Well, this must surely be the end of the Turin Shroud as an actual relic from the time of Jesus.

Nope. Not at all.


Carbon dating has said as much,

The shroud was in a fire and that kills any chance of carbon dating being accurate.


but now this man has reproduced the shroud using materials available in the middle ages.

So what? Just because something may be able to be reproduced doesn't mean the original is a fake.

The original has pollen from that area of the world and from that time period.
The original has floral impressions along the edges invisible to the naked eye.
The original is a negative.
The imprints of the coins on the eyes (one slipping) are not visible with the naked eye.

What person of thousands of years ago would think to fake something to that extent and with the understanding that in the year 2009 people would have technology to be able to see it? Answer .. no one.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Besides the possible discusion about if the Turin's one is a hoax or not, i think that what this guy have done is nothing especial at all... any single guy that work's on hollywood special effects industry will be able to reproduce duzens of Turin's Shrouds just using materials from your kitchen...
I can't understend the big deal on this guy...


[edit on 6/10/09 by Umbra Sideralis]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by Jim Scott
 


If the images is real, has anyone perhaps DNA tested the blood on the shroud? You to see if it is actually blood or paint? I think that would be the first place to start.


The DNA is compromised, and any finding would be open to dispute if they were able to get a good sample.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   

An Italian scientist says he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin, a feat that he says proves definitively that the linen some Christians revere as Jesus Christ's burial cloth is a medieval fake.


I personally don't put much into the shroud as being authentic and my faith doesn't depend on it. It's one of those things that I find interesting but not definite.

Regardless, this modern replication does not 'prove definitely' the shroud is a fake. As I've said a million times, just because someone can replicate something does not mean that is how the original came to be or how something forms in nature. For instance, scientists can replicate many natural occurrences in a lab but that is now how the process takes place naturally or originally.

It's the same with the shroud. The man replicated it but that does not conclusively prove his method is how the original shroud was made.

reply to post by Lister87
 



Even if it does prove to be from the same era as Jesus, there is no possible way they could prove it IS Jesus. It could be any bearded man from that era, hundreds of thousands of men lived in that era, if not millions, it could quite easily be a shroud from the burial of any man.



Again i ask, how can anyone ever prove it was Jesus' though?


If the shroud by some chance does eventually prove to be authentic (I'm not holding my breath on that but if), there are very distinct wounds of the body.

You can say it could be thousands or millions from that era but the shroud does not simply depict a body- it depicts one mirroring the wounds of Christ.

Did millions from that era die of crucifixion, have a crown of thorns on their heads (punctures in the head), have a wound with their side where they were pierced with a sword, etc.? Crucifixion victims typically had their legs broken- they were not pierced in their sides like Jesus was.

It still wouldn't 'PROVE' anything for dedicated skeptics but it would certainly narrow it down.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Judging by many of these responses, it merely reinforces the fact that faith is blind. The Shroud doesn't factor in the radius of the head. Try putting some color on your face, place a white tea towel over it, take it off and look at the print left in the tea towel. It's a horrible warped mess due to being placed over the radius of the face. The Shroud is only real to those who put faith ahead of intellect.

IRM :shk:



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 


That is one of my biggest problems with it. The face is too narrow. I had a photoshopped image I created to use in a thread on ATS sometime in 2008 but must have deleted it. But I'll make another one now to demonstrate. I've never seen a logical explanation for what the Shroud should look like due to flattening a spherical surface.



I suppose unless the shroud captured the image in 2d and didn't wrap fully around the head or what not but only the upwards facing part. No idea but that is one problem that keeps me from fully believing the shroud.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
Judging by many of these responses, it merely reinforces the fact that faith is blind. The Shroud doesn't factor in the radius of the head. Try putting some color on your face, place a white tea towel over it, take it off and look at the print left in the tea towel. It's a horrible warped mess due to being placed over the radius of the face. The Shroud is only real to those who put faith ahead of intellect.

IRM :shk:


That is quite possibly the most absurd and dismissive statement yet posted on this thread.

The Shroud is an artifact of a bygone era. Which era? We won't know until a second or third carbon test is performed and another pollen sampling taken, the data becomes synthesized and then put before peer review. Moreover, every recreation of the Shroud was a product of people sitting around in a room asking the question: If someone wanted to fake it, how could they fake it with existing materials, and then literally years of hit and miss guesswork until they were able to make a similar, but not exact reproduction.

Considering the times the perpetrators of this "fraud" lived in and the cost of such an endeavor, they would have had to have been a) wealthy, and b) have a magic mirror that allowed them to see into the future with the ability to somehow synthesize in their medieval minds the attributes and nuances of polarization.

Yes, huge chance of that happening. These are the same people that thought Galileo was nuts and believed that witches roamed the countryside.

The artifact looks nothing like "Jesus". If people of this period wanted to "fake" an artifact they would have made that artifact look like a painting because the ignorant people surrounding these geniuses would not understand why the heck the image didn't look like a person and, point of fact, looks kinda creepy.

It is one thing to question whether the image in the Shroud is Jesus. That is completely questionable. It is entirely another to say "faith above intellect" in context of those who believe in the Shroud as an image of Jesus without questioning the faith on the other side of this spectrum.

There are people that have so much faith that it couldn't possibly be Jesus that they are wasting research dollars to disprove what was never established in the first place, and disprove it using assumptions that are faulty and out of context with the population and era they are using as a control.

That is not only putting faith before intelligence it is a waste of money, ergo it is "stupid".


[edit on 6-10-2009 by A Fortiori]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 





Just as I would not trust the Pope to give me a fair accounting knowing his inclinations I cannot exactly trust someone who has "I don't hate Christians I just hate what they do" as their tagline. You are hardly impartial and also seek to fit what you desire into the evidence.


You may well have a valid point here (also within the rest of your response, time eh can't address all at the mo) and I consider my wrist slapped for entering into the debate with a bias .

My lack of impartiality however, has no bearing on the "lack of evidence" in relation to this shroud.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the shroud once draped the dead body of a jesus, and even if it did there is no evidence to show that the said jesus is/was of the gospels as the evidence here is also lacking.

It is a fair comment to criticize my lack of academic qualification in let's say archeology for example (or anything at all for that matter lol), but we have to bare in mind that these so called experts are not always impartial and can have a tendency to fit what they desire into evidence or lack of.

As I recall it wasn't long back that Lorraine Evans was slated by many of her peers in relation to her conclusions pertaining to Scota. Yet her propositions seemed quite plausible to the non academic such as myself, so what is one to do accept what the individual proposes based on their qualification or read every article or book published on the subject ?

Most commentators on any subject have a bias, however the majority of those with religious leanings that comment on the shroud will not even entertain the thought of being wrong they simply cannot be impartial .



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
reply to post by micpsi
 


Gotta agree. Being a 'Scientist' today is 99.5% politics, .45% butt kissing, and .05% science. Just take a look at the Al Gore 'scientists' as prime examples. They primarily nowadays come to a conclusion (usually politically based), then fabricate an 'experiment' that agrees with that conclusion. Most of it is just pure unadulterated BS.


Dear Ferris,
intentionally or not, your post is effectively a lie. I worked in science and industry for quite some time and your views of science are sheer nonsense.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 





Did millions from that era die of crucifixion, have a crown of thorns on their heads (punctures in the head), have a wound with their side where they were pierced with a sword, etc.? Crucifixion victims typically had their legs broken- they were not pierced in their sides like Jesus was.


We don't know, there doesn't appear to be any bodies preserved displaying this neither are there any historical accounts in writing.

There again the same applies to jesus, the description you quoted was written well after the alleged event was supposed to have taken place and is no more reliable than description of Thor.

Finding something that remarkably resembles Batmans' utility belt does not make Batman real.
Likewise believing that Batman is real does not make the Utility Belt Batmans'



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by A Fortiori
 

My lack of impartiality however, has no bearing on the "lack of evidence" in relation to this shroud.


What are you talking about? Did I ever say that this was the burial cloth of Jesus? No, I did not. There is no evidence at the moment to support that. As I said before there would have to be two sets of DNA evidence to corroborate each other and we will simply not get that, therefore we will never be able to say that the Shroud of Turin is the death cloth of the historical Jesus.


It is a fair comment to criticize my lack of academic qualification in let's say archeology for example (or anything at all for that matter lol), but we have to bare in mind that these so called experts are not always impartial and can have a tendency to fit what they desire into evidence or lack of.


I have not argued otherwise. I said that the pendulum swings both ways. I have seen just as much rhetoric and isogesis on Team Atheist as I have on Team Christian. Tell me if this Shroud was attributed to Eli the Camel Driver they would have gone to this effort and research to try an show how it could have been created.


As I recall it wasn't long back that Lorraine Evans was slated by many of her peers in relation to her conclusions pertaining to Scota. Yet her propositions seemed quite plausible to the non academic such as myself, so what is one to do accept what the individual proposes based on their qualification or read every article or book published on the subject ?


I am in no way even close to a SME on that particular time period so I could not say if her theory holds weight or not. My advice is to close no doors. Academia is rife with competition. Some people will shoot you down just to build themselves up, no differently than in the corporate world.

Does it hurt anything to leave the door open? Why make a decision or accept anything? You have your whole life to do research.



Most commentators on any subject have a bias, however the majority of those with religious leanings that comment on the shroud will not even entertain the thought of being wrong they simply cannot be impartial .


Most of those with atheistic leanings that comment on the shroud will not even entertain the thought of being wrong they simply cannot be impartial.

Moocow,

there is nothing wrong with remaining "open" to all possibilities--even those outside your belief system. I believe in G-D, but if you asked me if the Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus I would have to state that it is most-likely not. The statistical probability of that being the exact cloth is stratospheric. However, if someone discovered the remains of Jesus and then the DNA was resolved on the Shroud enough to perform an analysis and the DNA matched I wouldn't have to recant because I said "most-likely not". I would say: "Fair play!" and "Good job" and then be immensely jealous that I was not the one that made the discovery.


[edit on 6-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

[edit on 6-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

[edit on 6-10-2009 by A Fortiori]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
Judging by many of these responses, it merely reinforces the fact that faith is blind.

Not at all.
The science supports the shroud being authentic.

Those that are 'blind' are those that grab onto anything in order to claim that the shroud is fake, when in fact there is nothing proving that.


Originally posted by AshleyD
The face is too narrow.

There are a few reasons for the face being narrow ...

- Jesus lost nearly all his blood and body fluids. His face would have been sunken in.

- Scripture speaks of the head being wrapped with the head-burial cloth. This would have made the head portion in the shroud tighter and therefore smaller than the rest of the body in the shroud that didn't have an additional wrapping around it.


If the shroud is authentic or not doesn't change a persons faith. But it is nice to have a significant piece of history from a person who you admire and/or love. That is why the shroud is important. It doesn't change faith, but it is like having something special from someone you love. It's more than a 'keepsake' from a grandparent ... but you get the idea.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
reply to post by micpsi
 


Gotta agree. Being a 'Scientist' today is 99.5% politics, .45% butt kissing, and .05% science. Just take a look at the Al Gore 'scientists' as prime examples. They primarily nowadays come to a conclusion (usually politically based), then fabricate an 'experiment' that agrees with that conclusion. Most of it is just pure unadulterated BS.


Dear Ferris,
intentionally or not, your post is effectively a lie. I worked in science and industry for quite some time and your views of science are sheer nonsense.


I have to disagree. Metrics are a large part of grants and funding for "pure" research. Most research is "product" driven. Fact. That is where the money is. A scientist that wants to work for more than peanuts goes into product research. A friend of mine from school stayed on at Georgetown to work in neurobiology. Three years later she went to Strayer to become a software developer so that she could afford to live in the DC Metro area because her salary for "pure" medical research was too low to support the COL. I have another friend who works for RJ Reynolds and makes well over six figures.

While his statement was hyperbolic, the sentiment is true. Research, especially in this economy, has become if not political, but another victim of corporatism.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Evidence supporting the authenticity of the shroud include -

- Pollen evidence.
- Floral imprint evidence.
- Coins on the eyes imprint evidence.
- It was a 'negative'.

These are things that people hundreds and thousands of years ago wouldn't have even considered in order to 'fake' something like this. They didn't have the technology or any reason to think of sprinkling 2000 year old pollen on the shroud ... they didn't have the technology to make fake floral imprints that only high-tech modern gadgets could see .. same with the coins ....

www.newgeology.us...

The reason there were no 'smears' of the blood ... Christ 'rose from the dead' 36 hours after death. The blood was dry. AND he easily could have risen from the dead right through the cloth. He was (is?) in a 'glorified body'. Theologically speaking that means the physical elements of the world wouldn't have impeded him (in other words, he could have raised right through the shroud).



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


I think these are all valid arguments and a real possibility.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 





The statistical probability of that being the exact cloth is stratospheric. However, if someone discovered the remains of Jesus and then the DNA was resolved on the Shroud enough to perform an analysis and the DNA matched I wouldn't have to recant because I said "most-likely not". I would say: "Fair play!" and "Good job" and then be immensely jealous that I was not the one that made the discovery.


But then the discovery would only be that a cloth covered one of many men that went by the name of jesus. If however there was enough DNA at talpiot and that made a match then I would also be saying fair play, not only does it confirm a jesus but a microscopic bit of body to boot.
I don't leave my doors open but I do have handles on them.

"Eli the camel driver" cracked me up by the way







 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join