It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Scientist reproduces Turin shroud

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 03:21 AM

The Shroud of Turin has been reproduced by an Italian scientist in another attempt to prove that the cloth bearing an image of Christ's face is a fake.

A professor of organic chemistry at the University of Pavia said he had used materials and techniques that were available in the Middle Ages.

These included applying pigment to cloth and then heating it in an oven.

Tests 20 years ago dated the fabric to between 1260 and 1390, but believers say it is an authentic image of Christ.

The linen cloth, measuring about 4.4m by 1.1m (14.4 by 3.6 feet) holds the concealed image of a man bearing all the signs of crucifixion, including blood stains.

The tests in 1988 have been repeatedly challenged, and scientists remain unsure how the image came to be on the cloth.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Mr Garlaschelli, funded by a group of Italian atheists and agnostics, reproduced the shroud by placing a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbing it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A mask was used for the face.

I am going to stay on the sidelines for this thread and take in your point of views on this touchy topic.
As I do not have a opinion myself at the moment as I am not up to speed on the Shroud anyway so please enlighten me as I am very curious on your thoughts.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 04:55 AM
Ok I found a video on this for those who dont like reading news articles

Here is a video by a believer

and Do these facts show the Shroud of Turin to be phony?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 04:58 AM
Saw this on Yahoo news an hour or so ago, myself. I'm not a terribly religious person by any stretch of the imagination, but I never really thought the shroud was THE shroud. Just seemed too convenient. But, heck, I wasn't around 2000 years ago to dispute it, so anything is possible.


posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 06:59 AM
It is all well and good Scientists whooping with glee because they can reproduce something which has a huge significance to a lot of people.

However I have to say, with all the speculation over the years, is it a fake, is it real, has anyone ever asked and answered the question, why would someone all those years ago, want to fake it?

I am far from allowing such an artefact become significant in my faith and belief, but it seems to me that forgery of this kind is a modern affair, mostly for profit, because a clever Scientist can reproduce something very similar, does not in any way shape or form, tell us that the original was a fake.

To be honest, you would expect top Scientists to be able to produce such copies, Many people can reproduce the Mona Lisa, that does not mean Leonardo was just the average run of the mill Painter.

I have to say it again, just because it has been copied, with items and techniques available at the time, does not mean that was the way it was done, or indeed happened, it simply shows us that it can be done.

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 07:09 AM
reply to post by ocker

Then why has no pigment ever been found on the shroud?

top topics

log in