I have to say i really despair seeing the way a lot of you "interact" or "debate" in threads. Nobody ever seems to post any links or really anything
to back up what they are saying, things that are of interest to help learn new things from all sides and progress a debate.
i found this article which i found interesting, talking a bit about the history of the "debate" between peer reviewed scientists in different high
quality peer reviewed journals.
here are a few snippets which i hope (but doubt) will maybe lessen some of the wild theories and claims people try to force unto others. So please
read the article, read the evidence for yourself and come to your own conclusions about the information presented. Here are just a few snippets that
people should really consider or think about:
**the theory of it being related to Jacques De Molay is very interesting so i will be reading more about that as soon as im done here. having read the
article first without that in mind i didnt notice a couple of interesting things that seem to jump out more now that that info is known to my
". McCrone, having noted that the shroud had suddenly appeared in 1356 in the hands of a French knight who would not say where it came from and that a
local bishop soon thereafter claimed that an artist “cunningly painted” it, declared it a painted fake. "
now as you read more it seems that it is accepted that its not a painted fake, but the whole thing about the date and the french knight makes me want
to read more about the De Molay theory. Also this:
"The same year that the Shroud was first displayed publicly in the small French village of Lirey, "
so if i understand it right the shroud was only ever known to exist after the 1300's? and it appeared from France which doesn't really make me lean
towards the Jesus side of things. I haven't looked more into the shroud's known existence history so could I be wrong, it's just what seems to be said
from the article. Combined with the information provided just below it:
"the Pope was not in the eternal city. In this climate of superstition, naiveté and disorder a lucrative market in false relics flourished. And
though the Fourth Lateran Council, in 1215, acknowledged the problem, church authorities did little to curb the market in them. Our knowledge of this
time in history rightly conditions us to be suspicious of any relic that might appear in Europe at this time"
so the shroud emerged from France at a time when fake relics were a major problem:
" The year 1356 was a time of unbridled superstition in demons, witches, magic, and miracle-working relics. It was a time of frequent famine and the
Black Death plague. It was a time of extreme economic and political turbulence and of war."
so if it really did emerge from France in the 1300's then my initial feelings is that its unlikely to be Jesus and over 2k years old, unless someone
can point to it being known far further back in history than that. Certainly seems more likely to be a much more modern piece, real or fake, dating
from around the 1300's, but as we go on the article has more interesting points.
KEY POINTS FOR ALL THE UV ENTHUSIASTS:
"Starting in 2003, new evidence began to appear in secular, peer-reviewed, scientific journals that supported the Shroud of Turin's authenticity.
From these journals we learn that the outermost fibers of the cloth are coated with a layer of starch fractions and various saccharides. In places,
the coating has turned into a caramel-like substance, thus forming the images. This suggests a chemical reaction took place. "
"hypothesis that the Shroud of Turin's image is 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). The proposal, by chemist Raymond E. Rogers and Anna Arnoldi of the University of Milan,
is hypothetical. But the chemical and physical nature of the Shroud of Turin's images is pure scientific fact."
"In selective places, an otherwise clear layer of starch fractions and saccharides, a mere 200 to 600 nanometers thick, as thin as the wall of a soap
bubble, has undergone a chemical change into a caramel colored substance. Spectral and chemical analysis reveal that the chromophores of the Shroud of
Turin's images are complex, conjugated carbon bonds."
so i have no idea what effect using UV to burn images has, but if UV can burn an image onto something 200-600 nanometers thick then WOW. So, if i was
to be presented with 2 options, 1) UV burned image from supernatural source or 2) A very normal chemical reation, i know which id believe
on 23-12-2011 by Equ1nox because: (no reason given)