Italian scientist reproduces Shroud of Turin

Originally posted by randyvs
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.

You talk about 'debunking' it like it's already FACT it's the shroud of Jesus.

At the moment i guess it could be seen as in the middle. Not proven, not disproven.

In my opinion, i don't think it is the shroud of jesus.

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?

Apparently hard enough for anyone to even identify HOW it was made, let alone ever reproduce it - even with 21st century technology.

Faith.

Science.

Are they at odds? No. Only foolish people who fail to understand the value and point of each.

Perhaps this object was meant to bolster faith. Perhaps it was meant to attract it. It is not the object itself that matters. It's what we do with it.

I wonder why there aren't scores of 'shrouds' such as that of Turin around?

I wonder why someone would venture to create the object knowingly, to achieve some unknown end.

But in the end, science and faith remain unperturbed by the inquiry.

Such objections as to the claims of others regarding this artifact are only objections.

Could this have been the cloth that physically wrapped the body of the man that many believe to be the Redeemer? The facts seem to counter the possibility. But they do not eliminate it. Because they can't utterly eliminate a negative assertion. Anything is possible. Even reproducing the phenomenon which created it? Perhaps not, but even so, it could be made to look that way, no? Anything is possible.

Science knows this, faith embraces it.

Why should it be important for Christianity if the shroud of Turin is fake or not?

I have news for the people who shall jump to the opportunity of showing such a claim as a proof that also Christian religion could be fake.

Through the passage of centuries since from the Roman era, millions of artifacts, most times significant, used to be "borrowed" (and never returned) at the general vicinity to the East (of Rome) and usually as far as human soul could travel, those days. Well you could say that Romans and whoever followed them, whatever was of significant value not nailed down or hidden deep inside the earth, (and even then you could not be sure) it eventually "magically" ended up at their possession.
That was happening at least 250 years before the Christ era. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Romans indeed have ended up with a lot of fake artifacts they mistook for the real thing, if the locals were becoming a bit more wiser, and the probably were.

In this light, a scientist reproducing some spots on a sheet doesn't really offer much proof for anything regarding if Christianity should be treated as fake or not.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by spacebot]

reply to post by Maxmars


Is that you, G.?!
So you've come to ATS, at last!

I swear, you sound exactly like my friend, the Jesuit, I was talking about in my previous post. :-)

And you're both right, of course.
It's a very good point.

reply to post by kiwifoot


I don't know where to start...

First, I will admit to not having worked on the Shroud of Turin. I am not claiming to have done so. What I will say is that I have worked with carbon dating, and I have been privy to pollen and other organic analysis in my field of study. If you spoke to 99% of archaeologists and forensic experts and asked them their opinion of the carbon date most would agree that it was an inaccurate representation of fact and argue for another sampling to be dated.

Most of the skeptics who write articles have not been responsible for a lab, have not performed dating of any kind, and therefore rest their laurels upon the disparagement of those that have done this type of work. Unfortunately, this has become an almost dogmatic and formulaic approach to dealing with anything anyone might even assume is remotely paranormal and/or religious. *sighs*

For example, when the pollen dating came back with results that dated the Shroud prior to the eighth century instead of making their case against the results of the findings most self-anointed skeptics decided to attack the forensics official that took the tape sampling. It is my opinion that they did this because Max Frei-Sulzer was an easier mark than Avinoam Danin, who is an SME in evolution and systematics at a Hebrew University in Jerusalem. However, my next theory is less kind, that they couldn't find anyone at an expert level who could disagree with the peer reviewed findings and knowingly began an ad hominem attack to deflect while they tried to gather evidence to take apart the findings of Danin.

Max Frei-Sulzer, a forensics expert from Zurich, and three other experts were given diaries that were potentially attributed to Hitler and asked to authenticate on handwriting samples alone. All three agreed that based on handwriting alone they were authentic. They were not given ink samples, nor instructed to perform chemical tests upon the documents. Handwriting alone. Unfortunately, when another forensics expert was given permission to perform chemical analysis all three men looked as though they had endorsed a hoax.

When arguing against the Shroud and forced to deal with the pollen and flora dating instead of attempting to understand the evidence and its collection, they attack the individual taking the evidence and add heresay for a touch of spite.

OH! It was collected by Max Frei! Well, then the pollen dating is to be disregarded because he was the one that said the Hitler diaries were real...

Not pointing out to their readers the circumstances involving his work on the Hitler diaries. If you do not "own" a particular artifact you cannot take it upon yourself to tamper with the artifact and perform chemical analysis. He was in a Catch-22.

The next snark is:

He turned over only samples from the edge of the tape...

Clearly, if you see the sample it becomes obvious that he did not use the edge, moreover, even if he did submit from the edge how did a lab have random ancient flora floating about the room in enough quantities to stick--you know, I don't even understand that argument or their justification enough to return snark so I will quit.

People make mistakes in research when not given all the right information needed to perform a task. Max Frei-Sulzer was no more a buffoon for agreeing it was Hitler's handwriting than the first carbon dating tests performed by the British Museum. In that case, it was likewise not a problem with the methodology, but with what they were given to work with.

Most of the people who are skeptics do not have first hand knowledge or experience in forensics--just enough to be dangerous. I said recently to Weedwacker and Turbofan that I have just enough physics to be dangerous when it comes to reading and understanding astrophysics or aerodynamics, therefore I should not speak with a smug sense of self-assurance when describing the Pentagon crash. I wish more skeptics did likewise.

I do have experience in this area and as such I take some issue with the so-called skeptics who leap prematurely to conclusion on artifacts.

Skepticism in the classic sense of the word is about questioning. Most skeptics are not questioning they are jumping to a conclusion and then back engineering it to fit. That is religion. That is not skepticism.

I can be skeptical about the Shroud. Saying that it pollen dates to pre-eighth century does not make it the burial cloth of Jesus. It makes it a cloth that predates what was found in the original carbon dating. I don't need to go further than that. You cannot prove that it was the burial cloth of Jesus unless you were to find the body of Jesus and compare DNA (although the DNA on the shroud is highly corrupt).

The fact that in the fourteenth century someone could create an item like the SoT does not mean that someone did. It means that in the fourteenth century someone could replicate something of that kind. That's all any of us can know. To assume that because they could means that someone did is assuming a motivation that we certainly cannot know hundreds of years later.

If you are bent on disproving versus investigating a religious "idea" or belief you end up excluding other possibilities. If this were not somehow connected with the "historical Jesus" then no one would try and recreate it so that they could proclaim it a hoax. Because we are uncomfortable with anything open-ended skeptics will now abruptly shut the door on research.

Leaving it open-ended, allows you to continue research. It may be some caravan driver's image, it could have been any number of people. It might have been created in some other manner or for some yet unknown purpose (the beginning of a work of art, etc). But I am certain that my post will fall upon deaf ears because of the subject matter so allow me to stop typing before my hand cramps...

Originally posted by kiwifoot

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

both the recent image on right
and the 500 y.o. image on left

prove that 'Hulk Hogan' is indeed an immortal, how else could his likeness span half a millinium...unless he poised for both images

(said tongue-in-cheek)

I don't know where to start either...

OH! It was collected by Max Frei! Well, then the pollen dating is to be disregarded because he was the one that said the Hitler diaries were real...

When everything else fails, resort to ad hominem (albeit subtly) and hope for the best... It works every time - especially among members of the "general public", with little knowledge about the complexity of the subject.

The fact that in the fourteenth century someone could create an item like the SoT does not mean that someone did.

Exactly.
One would think such a persuasive - even obvious - argument would not need to be hammered again and again, especially among "scientifically" minded people.
But it does.
(And in this particular case the object has, in fact, never been satisfactorily replicated.)

But I am certain that my post will fall upon deaf ears because of the subject matter so allow me to stop typing before my hand cramps...

If by that you mean the ears of those who are not really interested at all in this subject (because they see in it just another vehicle for whatever "agenda" they may have), you're probably right.

Personally I think it's a fantastic post, both in its contents AND in its tone.






[edit on 5-10-2009 by Vanitas]

prove that 'Hulk Hogan' is indeed an immortal,

Thank you for saying it aloud first.
My thoughts exactly.
(Only, I am a chicken, so I wait for someone else to voice it, and then nod in agreement... ;-)





[edit on 5-10-2009 by Vanitas]

reply to post by A Fortiori


Thank you for that. Posts such as yours are the one's I direct friends to....

If I might pry, should I infer that the practice of scientific research may not be entirely free of ideological intrigue? Or is it just the sponsors that insert that flaw into the process of increasing human knowledge?

Originally posted by Vanitas
reply to post by Maxmars

 

Is that you, G.?!
So you've come to ATS, at last!

I swear, you sound exactly like my friend, the Jesuit, I was talking about in my previous post. :-)

And you're both right, of course.
It's a very good point.

Sorry - it's definitely not G.

Well, sometimes I get verbose and preachy - sorry if it sounded inappropriately pretentious. I don't think they would ordain me, and I'm not sure they would want to

Shouldn't scientist(s) be spending their time on more pressing issues?

I can list one thousand more important issues, then debunking/ replicating iconic religious pieces. What's the point?

Just saying...

Originally posted by squidboy
Shouldn't scientist(s) be spending their time on more pressing issues?

I can list one thousand more important issues, then debunking/ replicating iconic religious pieces. What's the point?

Just saying...

Exactly, as i said, even if they date it to Jesus' time, they can never actually prove it was Jesus' shroud.

So whats the point? Absolute waste. If people have faith in some old book, Jesus and God in the first place, surely they can have faith in a shroud of him?

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by A Fortiori

 

Thank you for that. Posts such as yours are the one's I direct friends to....

If I might pry, should I infer that the practice of scientific research may not be entirely free of ideological intrigue? Or is it just the sponsors that insert that flaw into the process of increasing human knowledge?

Actually, in research you will find that the people that can put their hands on stuff sound nothing like the people who write for skeptic magazine. They are, we are like giddy schoolkids. When I said the shroud could be of a caravan driver, to archaeologists that is just as cool because it is a long dead caravan driver. My first find at my first dig was just a tiny little olive lamp. That little lamp, maybe four to five inches long was amazing to me because someone that I'd never met, long ago once held it in their hands. What were they like? What were their dreams?

Does the Shroud have to be Jesus to be interesting? A resounding no!

Many of the "experts" that skeptic magazine uses are taken out of context or it is not their area of expertise, they're just a PhD. or a PhD that has never examined the evidence and is "led". Moreover, many times there is academic competition that will provoke an ego-driven response--prime example, watch any Discovery Channel show on Egypt and watch Hawass speak.

Unfortunately, in some fields of research the funder has more to do with the outcomes than ideological intrigue. Your proposal is targeted and you will look to prove something versus how research used to be conducted (cue image of mad scientist mixing up concoctions) where you could explore open-endedly. Now, people with money want to see results that can be manifested easily.

Here is a rather un biased and genuine look into what the shroud has been subjected to over the years in terms of its Authenticity...





IMO, it's as fake as the religion it is attached to - but hey...

If people have faith in some old book, Jesus and God in the first place, surely they can have faith in a shroud of him?

I think you'll find I replied to the points you make in my second reply to you.






[edit on 5-10-2009 by Vanitas]

Originally posted by happygolucky
Here is a rather un biased and genuine look into what the shroud has been subjected to over the years in terms of its Authenticity...

IMO, it's as fake as the religion it is attached to - but hey...

Define "fake" without bringing the religious experience into it. You are saying that it is a "fake" what? Fake cloth? No, it's a cloth. Fake relic? No, it is also a relic. Oh, you must mean that you don't think the image is Jesus and burnt on using mystical means, correct?

Well, that does not mean it is a "fake".

By the way, what are Rachael Bell's qualifications to interpret archaeological investigations? Oh, that's right. Shes a forensic psychologist. Lots of work for that type in archaeology. So many mummies walking around and committing crimes these days...

How did you like my skeptic impersonation?

By the way, what are Rachael Bell's qualifications to interpret archaeological investigations? Oh, that's right. Shes a forensic psychologist. Lots of work for that type in archaeology. So many mummies walking around and committing crimes these days...

How did you like my skeptic impersonation?

Don't know about the poster, but I did!

I blame it on the National Geographic Channel and their neverending soap opera: "Who killed Tutankhamun"... Puts ideas in people's heads.

Good to see some scientific balance for a change here.

reply to post by A Fortiori

Define "fake" ...Oh, you must mean that you don't think the image is Jesus and burnt on using mystical means, correct?

It's not the face of jesus on the shroud mystical or not...I had to explain that to you?

By the way, what are Rachael Bell's qualifications to interpret archaeological investigations?...Shes a forensic psychologist

Why would that NOT be a good resource to use in this investigation..?

How did you like my skeptic impersonation?

You could use some mental viagra...

Originally posted by happygolucky
reply to post by A Fortiori

 

Define "fake" ...Oh, you must mean that you don't think the image is Jesus and burnt on using mystical means, correct?

It's not the face of jesus on the shroud mystical or not...I had to explain that to you?

Saying that it is not the face of Jesus is not saying that it is a "fake", must I explain that to you?

Note: I wish you hadn't used Indy as your icon. I keep hearing his voice in my head now and am having trouble being appropriately snarky.

A "fake" diamond is something created to look like a diamond but is not. A "fake" Picasso is something made to look like a Picasso but is not. What was this cloth made to look like? A "picture" of Jesus? Then why doesn't it?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cb12297609b9.gif[/atsimg]

The images that most people see on TV of the shroud (you know, the Hulk Hogan looking dude) are the results of conversing the "photo negative" images. They did not have this technology in the 14th century.

Yes, we can figure out how someone might "fake" the shroud's image in the 14th century using Q-tips and a flashlight, but to what purpose if it is improbable? What are the chances that they planned six hundred years ahead? Their target audience for this forgery are the same people that thought the solar system revolved around a flat earth. They would have made the image look like a painting of Jesus if they were faking it as the dumb "Catholic" peasants who thought that a witch weighs the same as a duck would not have understood the technology of "negatives".

By the way, what are Rachael Bell's qualifications to interpret archaeological investigations?...Shes a forensic psychologist

Why would that NOT be a good resource to use in this investigation..?

Because unless she is going to travel back in time to take the stand and offer her opinion as to the mental capacity of the forgers then she has nothing to offer. Having "forensic" in your title doesn't make you a crime scene investigator or an archaeologist. "Forensic" means that you are capable of appearing before a court. It is not the actual "science" part. Her degree is useless to an archeological investigation. Her coursework does not at all intersect DNA sampling, nor is she a subject matter expert in historical technologists.

How did you like my skeptic impersonation?

You could use some mental viagra...

Ahh well, too bad I couldn't get it up for you...