Italian scientist reproduces Shroud of Turin

Italian scientist reproduces Shroud of Turin

uk.reuters.com

ROME (Reuters) - 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.

The shroud, measuring 14 feet, 4 inches by 3 feet, 7 inches bears the image, eerily reversed like a photographic negative, of a crucified man some believers say is Christ.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Well, this must surely be the end of the Turin Shroud as an actual relic from the time of Jesus. Carbon dating has said as much, but now this man has reproduced the shroud using materials available in the middle ages.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bd1ee56e2871.png[/atsimg]

But at least the mystery of how it was made has been solved.

A medieval hoax, one of hundreds that took advantage of the lust for relics from the time of Christ!

uk.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 5-10-2009 by kiwifoot]

Luigi Garlaschelli seems to have missed the point. It is the negative photographic image of the imprint on the Shroud of Turin that looks like a man. All he has done is to create a similar image on a linen sheet. Big deal! That's not the same thing as the Shroud of Turin. Let him try creating an image WHOSE NEGATIVE IS THAT OF A MAN. Only then can he claim that he has proved that it was fabricated.

(You know, I blame the universities. they don't turn out scientists of quality any more).

Great post, thanks for that!

I've always thought the shroud was absolute rubbish anyway, so it comes as no suprise.

Carbon dating quite clearly stated it was from the 1200-1300's, that kills it already.

It's as phony as catholicism.


[edit on 5-10-2009 by Lister87]

I have a German documentary in which they collected spores and seeds from the shroud and by determining the species they found out that it travelled from Jerusalem to France. There are also depictions from the 10th century.
I'm not an religious man but I do think there is something to the story of Jesus.

Jesus Christ

Jesus ---> Je Suis ---> French for I AM
Christ ---> Christal ---> Crystal

I AM CRYSTAL
Think about that!

Originally posted by Lister87
Great post, thanks for that!

I've always thought the shroud was absolute rubbish anyway, so it comes as no suprise.

Carbon dating quite clearly stated it was from the 1200-1300's, that kills it already.

It's as phony as catholicism.


[edit on 5-10-2009 by Lister87]

That's a laugh. Even Professor Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford University Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, who did the carbon dating, has now admitted his method of using bacteria-contaminated samples from the edge of the sheet was wrong and recommends a fresh dating be taken.
www.telegraph.co.uk...

Originally posted by micpsi

Originally posted by Lister87
Great post, thanks for that!

I've always thought the shroud was absolute rubbish anyway, so it comes as no suprise.

Carbon dating quite clearly stated it was from the 1200-1300's, that kills it already.

It's as phony as catholicism.


[edit on 5-10-2009 by Lister87]

That's a laugh. Even Professor Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford University Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, who did the carbon dating, has now admitted his method of using bacteria-contaminated samples from the edge of the sheet was wrong and recommends a fresh dating be taken.
www.telegraph.co.uk...

Firstly:

".. is investigating claims that its findings were wrong."

Secondly,

"The results, which are due next month, will form part of a documentary on the Turin Shroud that is being broadcast on BBC 2 on Easter Saturday."

What were these results? That article is February 2008, we're now over a year further ahead. I guess nothing major, because it wasn't publicized?

Really though his solution begs the question...how would they know how to do it in the first place? Can they point to any other examples to prove that they did?

Has anyone tried to anoint a body with oil like they did in in Jesus' day then wrap a body in it and leave it three days?

Originally posted by micpsi

Originally posted by Lister87
Great post, thanks for that!

I've always thought the shroud was absolute rubbish anyway, so it comes as no suprise.

Carbon dating quite clearly stated it was from the 1200-1300's, that kills it already.

It's as phony as catholicism.


[edit on 5-10-2009 by Lister87]

That's a laugh. Even Professor Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford University Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, who did the carbon dating, has now admitted his method of using bacteria-contaminated samples from the edge of the sheet was wrong and recommends a fresh dating be taken.
www.telegraph.co.uk...

They should go ahead with it.

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.

Of course the church, especially the Catholic church will say it's jesus.

Originally posted by micpsi
Luigi Garlaschelli seems to have missed the point. It is the negative photographic image of the imprint on the Shroud of Turin that looks like a man. All he has done is to create a similar image on a linen sheet. Big deal!

He'll get his five minutes in the limelight because of all the many people who have very little idea of how sophisticated this object really is and of all the problems it presents (the "negative" part certainly being the main difficulty), and because of a basic flaw in the reasoning of many a "scientific" mind: that because something CAN be replicated in a certain way, it necessarily follows that it WAS created in that manner.

reply to post by Erich Kemper


I think I remember that documentary!
Certainly the seeds and pollen prove without a doubt that the fabric had been exposed to plants that only grew in the Middle East.

I also remember - how could I ever forget it? - a very good and thorough Dutch (or maybe Belgian) documentary I saw years ago where the iconographic part was also well explained: namely, the Byzantine (Constantinopolitan) manuscript miniatures that present iconographic anomalies ((inaccuracies) only explicable by exposure to the mandylion, which was satisfactorily identified as being identical to what we know as the "Turin shroud".

What was funny, or rather ironic, is that I set out to watch that documentary expecting to be convinced it's a forgery - and it ended up convincing (or almost - I am keeping my mind open) me that it wasn't.






[edit on 5-10-2009 by Vanitas]

Has anyone tried to anoint a body with oil like they did in in Jesus' day then wrap a body in it and leave it three days?

I think I remember a group doing that a few years ago.
They got nothing but a smeared outline.

The main - not the only - problem, however, is the "negative" image.
(One of the many "skeptics" claimed to have solved by having a heated metal statue wrapped in cloth. The resulting image, of which he was visibly proud, was coarsely "tridimensional", of course - but it looked nothing like the image on the Shroud.)




[edit on 5-10-2009 by Vanitas]

Nice find! You beat me to it LOL. S&F

I think this does a fine job of proving that the materials and method were available to forge the Shroud of Turin in medieval times. I think most people know (believe) that it is a fake. Even the Vatican stops short of declaring it authentic.

The Catholic Church makes no claims about the relic's authenticity, but says it is a powerful symbol of Christ's suffering.

I like the following statement, as it is so true:

Garlaschelli told Repubblica he didn't think his research would convince those who have faith in the shroud's authenticity.

"They won't give up," he said. "Those who believe in it will continue to believe."

dsc.discovery.com...

[edit on 5-10-2009 by Aggie Man]

Originally posted by Vanitas
reply to post by Erich Kemper

 

I think I remember that documentary!
Certainly the seeds and pollen prove without a doubt that the fabric had been exposed to plants that only grew in the Middle East.

I also remember - how could I ever forget it? - a very good and thorough Dutch (or maybe Belgian) documentary I saw years ago where the iconographic part was also well explained: namely, the Byzantine (Constantinopolitan) manuscript miniatures that present iconographic anomalies ((inaccuracies) only explicable by exposure to the mandylion, which was satisfactorily identified as being identical to what we know as the "Turin shroud".

What was funny, or rather ironic, is that I set out to watch that documentary expecting to be convinced it's a forgery - and it ended up convincing (or almost - I still keep my mind open) me that it wasn't.
[edit on 5-10-2009 by Vanitas]

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, the church claiming it's Jesus is rather biased.

Anyway, the fact that they took a piece of 'burnt cloth' doesn't mean that the results are ACTUALLY wrong, but the guy said he thinks it should be re-tested incase.

If it is retested and the same results occur, i'd go with the Jacques de Molay theory, that sounds the most plausible.

"They won't give up," he said. "Those who believe in it will continue to believe."

Let's hope - for his sake - this is just an unfortunate translation...
Nobody but the superstitious believe in the Shroud.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with faith.
(And BTW, the Vatican does not "stop short from declaring it authentic" - the Vatican is very much against declaring anything about it. After all, in their view, it is just a piece of cloth - even if it were the cloth that once contained Christ's body.)

Originally posted by Vanitas

"They won't give up," he said. "Those who believe in it will continue to believe."

Let's hope - for his sake - this is just an unfortunate translation...

Nobody but the superstitious believe in the Shroud.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with faith.
(And BTW, the Vatican does not "stop short from declaring it authentic" - the Vatican is very much against declaring anything about it. After all, in their view, it is just a piece of cloth - even if it were the cloth that once contained Christ's body.)

The Vatican is as corrupt as it comes, i wouldn't care/believe what they had to say.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by Lister87]

reply to post by Lister87


Oh, I don't think anyone or anything could prove that it was Jesus specifically - no doubt about that! And I don't think (I certainly hope so) nobody claims they could.

No: what I (and, I suspect, many others) find fascinating is the effect of the apparent "radiation" that seems to have taken place.
Let's suppose it WAS somehow... let's call it super-natural. And let's suppose it is proven as such. It would be fascinating - but, as a good friend of mine, a Jesuit, never fails to point out, it still wouldn't prove it was Jesus of Nazareth (although the expression "Christ" would probably be more accurate and appropriate at that point) who was wrapped in it.










[edit on 5-10-2009 by Vanitas]

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.

reply to post by kiwifoot



It's already been a few years, since top sci-guys were allowed to examine the shroud as a team. They failed to debunk it then and this joker certainly hasn't debumked it now.get a grip.

Medieval Europe and the Middle East was a time of relics. You couldn't move for people hawking 'the little finger of St. Paul' etc. I'm pretty sure that if every relic, in every Church etc. from that time were properly studied there wouldn't be much that dated back to Biblical times.

Plus, there seem to have been a lot of saints who had more than the usual amount of fingers (well, if 100 churches claimed to have a finger from St. Mark, some of them must have been duped). It's that some still use these relics to attract the 'faithful' that makes me laugh. If you question the authenticity of anything that has the papal blessing, you are a heretic.

Meh. It's the toebone of a 9th century peasant who died from the flu. Prove me wrong.

As for the shroud, same applies. If I wanted to make a few schekels back in AD990 or whatever, how hard would it be to make something relatively convincing, and then sell it to whomever would buy it? Again, no shortage of takers back then.