Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 2,064 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 192,496
Pageviews Today: 487,784Threads Today: 293Posts Today: 5,502
10:22 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Shroud of Turin Ža fakeŽ

 
Baobab
Offer Upgrade

06/28/2005 12:29 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Shroud of Turin Ža fakeŽ
[link to www.news24.com]

Shroud of Turin Ža fakeŽ
21/06/2005 18:34 - (SA)

# New shroud of Turin theory

Paris - A French magazine said on Tuesday it had carried out experiments that proved the Shroud of Turin, believed by some Christians to be their religionŽs holiest relic, was a fake.

"A mediaeval technique helped us to make a Shroud," Science & Vie (Science and Life) said in its July issue.

The Shroud is claimed by its defenders to be the cloth in which the body of Jesus Christ was wrapped after his crucifixion.

It bears the faint image of a blood-covered man with holes in his hand and wounds in his body and head, the apparent result of being crucified, stabbed by a Roman spear and forced to wear a crown of thorns.

In 1988, scientists carried out carbon-14 dating of the delicate linen cloth and concluded that the material was made some time between 1260 and 1390. Their study prompted the then archbishop of Turin, where the Shroud is stored, to admit that the garment was a hoax. But the debate sharply revived in January this year.

Drawing on a method previously used by skeptics to attack authenticity claims about the Shroud, Science & Vie got an artist to do a bas-relief - a sculpture that stands out from the surrounding background - of a Christ-like face.

A scientist then laid out a damp linen sheet over the bas-relief and let it dry, so that the thin cloth was moulded onto the face.

Using cotton wool, he then carefully dabbed ferric oxide, mixed with gelatine, onto the cloth to make blood-like marks. When the cloth was turned inside-out, the reversed marks resulted in the famous image of the crucified Christ.

Fixative

Gelatine, an animal by-product rich in collagen, was frequently used by Middle Age painters as a fixative to bind pigments to canvas or wood.

The imprinted image turned out to be wash-resistant, impervious to temperatures of 250°C and was undamaged by exposure to a range of harsh chemicals, including bisulphite which, without the help of the gelatine, would normally have degraded ferric oxide to the compound ferrous oxide.

The experiments, said Science & Vie, answer several claims made by the pro-Shroud camp, which says the marks could not have been painted onto the cloth.

For one thing, the ShroudŽs defenders argue, photographic negatives and scanners show that the image could only have derived from a three-dimensional object, given the width of the face, the prominent cheekbones and nose.

In addition, they say, there are no signs of any brushmarks. And, they argue, no pigments could have endured centuries of exposure to heat, light and smoke.

For Jacques di Costanzo, of Marseille University Hospital, southern France, who carried out the experiments, the medieval forger must have also used a bas-relief, a sculpture or cadaver to get the 3-D imprint.

Booming market

The faker used a cloth rather than a brush to make the marks, and used gelatine to keep the rusty blood-like images permanently fixed and bright for selling in the booming market for religious relics.

To test his hypothesis, di Costanzo used ferric oxide, but no gelatine, to make other imprints, but the marks all disappeared when the cloth was washed or exposed to the test chemicals.

He also daubed the bas-relief with an ammoniac compound designed to represent human sweat and also with cream of aloe, a plant that was used as an embalming aid by Jews at the time of Christ.

He then placed the cloth over it for 36 hours - the approximate time that Christ was buried before rising again - but this time, there was not a single mark on it.

"ItŽs obviously easier to make a fake shroud than a real one," Science & Vie report drily.

The first documented evidence of the Shroud dates back to 1357, when it surfaced at a church at Lirey, near the eastern French town of Troyes. In 1390, Pope Clement VII declared that it was not the true shroud but could be used as a representation of it, provided the faithful be told that it was not genuine.

In January this year, a US chemist, Raymond Rogers, said the radiocarbon samples for the 1988 study were taken from a piece that had been sewn into the fabric by nuns who repaired the Shroud after it was damaged in a church blaze in 1532.

Rogers said that his analysis of other samples, based on levels of a chemical called vanillin that results from the decomposition of flax and other plants, showed the Shroud could be "between 1 300 and 3 000 years old."
Physicist  (OP)

12/08/2005 10:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Shroud of Turin Ža fakeŽ
This experiment does not PROVE the Shroud of Turin is a fake. It merely demonstrates that it could have been faked. The distinction is very important, and anyone who jumps to this conclusion is not thinking scientifically. RogerŽs analysis, if confirmed, proves that the Shroud is old enough to be the burial cloth of Jesus. But it does not prove it be so. A hoaxer could have bought the linen in the 12th century from someone who had brought it back from the Middle East, when it was already hundreds of yeard old. This would explain why pollen from flowers growing around Jerusalem have been found in the material. The paint/dabbing theory cannot explain the discovery a year or two ago by an Italian physicist that the discoloration of fibres is confined to the surface of the shroud. If the image had been dabbed onto a sheet stuck to a sculpture or cadaver and the sheet then turned inside-out, the ferric oxide-gelatin mixture would have had to seep through the cloth in order to create the negative image. But the Italian scientist found no evidence of discoloration of fibres between the two surfaces of the sheet. Hence,Jacques di CostanzoŽs conclusions are inconsistent with this research. Perhaps someone should tell him. Evidently, he has not heard about this earlier research, which discredits his theory.
stgeorge  (OP)

12/08/2005 10:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Shroud of Turin Ža fakeŽ
I agree.Fake. Since Jesus did not die,He Ascended,where did the shroud come from?
A body must be disposed of,this was a legal crucifixion and torture, what did they plan to do if he died? No record anywhere? There must have been a system,Jesus was not the only man crucified.
Baobab  (OP)

12/08/2005 10:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Shroud of Turin Ža fakeŽ
I dunno guys, I just thought it was interesting, I always wondered what would have been used to fake it.

Just seems hard to believe that people way back then could come up with something so simple that scientists couldnŽt figure out what it was.

Very strange.
stgeorge  (OP)

12/08/2005 10:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Shroud of Turin Ža fakeŽ
Comments on what I just said? Logic does not appeal to you?
Baobab  (OP)

12/08/2005 10:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Shroud of Turin Ža fakeŽ
LOL, what did you just say? ItŽs too early in the mornin to be doin the mind twister thing. Yaaawwwnn, I havenŽt even hadda a cuppa coffee yet!
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Shroud of Turin Ža fakeŽ
Funny how the titile of the article has nothing to do with what it says. Was SATAN the editor?

Actually, it sounds like they proved it could be real.

"In January this year, a US chemist, Raymond Rogers, said the radiocarbon samples for the 1988 study were taken from a piece that had been sewn into the fabric by nuns who repaired the Shroud after it was damaged in a church blaze in 1532.

Rogers said that his analysis of other samples, based on levels of a chemical called vanillin that results from the decomposition of flax and other plants, showed the Shroud could be "between 1 300 and 3 000 years old."





GLP