Shroud of Turin is not a fake, Vatican says


Goober
#1
Shroud of Turin is not a fake, Vatican says


Science, still unable to disprove the Shroud.

Rome - The Vatican's official newspaper has given strong endorsement to research by Italian scientists that suggests the Shroud of Turin cannot be a medieval fake and may be the authentic burial cloth of Christ.

"For science, the shroud continues to be an 'impossible object' - impossible to falsify," L'Osservatore Romano said in a lengthy article Thursday.

The researchers presented their results with "extreme caution" and had stopped short of putting forward theories that "strayed from science."

But the implication was that the enigmatic marks on the cloth were created at the moment of Christ's Resurrection by some sort of miracle.

After five years of laser experiments, experts from the National Agency for New Technologies and Energy, concluded the imprint of a bearded man's face and crucified body could not be reproduced by modern scientific techniques.

Skeptics have long claimed the shroud is a medieval forgery. Radiocarbon testing conducted by laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Arizona in 1988 appeared to back up that theory, suggesting it dated from between 1260 and 1390.

But those tests were in turn disputed on the basis they were skewed by contamination by fibres from cloth used to repair the relic when it was damaged by fire in the Middle Ages.

"The double image [front and back] of a scourged and crucified man, barely visible on the linen cloth of the Shroud of Turin, has many physical and chemical characteristics that are so particular that the staining ... is impossible to obtain in a laboratory," the Italian experts concluded.
They said the exact shade, texture and depth of the imprints on the cloth could only be produced with the aid of ultraviolet lasers - technology that was clearly not available in medieval times.

The scientists used extremely brief pulses of ultraviolet light to replicate the kind of marks found on the burial cloth. They concluded the iconic image must therefore have been created by "some form of electromagnetic energy (such as a flash of light at short wavelength)."
 
petros
+2
#2
Some guy in a sleeping bag was hit by lightning is just as valid.
 
CDNBear
+1
#3
Turin Shroud confirmed as a fake (external - login to view)
 
mentalfloss
#4
It's telling that this is some serious scientific endeavour only because it is a response to a religious claim. While I don't mind scientists doing their job, it makes you wonder if disproving falsehoods like these are necessary or simply a waste of time.
 
TenPenny
#5
Definitely a waste of time, the believers will believe no matter what.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+3
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Turin Shroud confirmed as a fake (external - login to view)

The OP article disputes the carbon dating claiming it was 'repaired' in the 13th century.

I think the OP is basically saying that they haven't yet been able to disprove that this was what is claimed. The Vatican is spinning it to mean positive proof of course.
 
CDNBear
+2
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

It's telling that this is some serious scientific endeavour only because it is a response to a religious claim. While I don't mind scientists doing their job, it makes you wonder if disproving falsehoods like these are necessary or simply a waste of time.

Researching historical artifacts, real or otherwise, isn't a waste of time.

It's educating.

Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

The OP article disputes the carbon dating claiming it was 'repaired' in the 13th century.

I think the OP is basically saying that they haven't yet been able to disprove that this was what is claimed. The Vatican is spinning it to mean positive proof of course.

The link I provided goes into that as well. Citing US Chemist, Raymond Rogers Vanillin test, that he claims indicates the shroud could be between 1300 and 3000 years old. I'd like to see the results of other dating tests, on an original sample.

www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/ (external - login to view)

www.skepticalspectacle.com/ (external - login to view)

I love the Skeptical Inquirer.
 
DaSleeper
+7
#8  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

It's telling that this is some serious scientific endeavour only because it is a response to a religious claim. While I don't mind scientists doing their job, it makes you wonder if disproving falsehoods like these are necessary or simply a waste of time.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Researching historical artifacts, real or otherwise, isn't a waste of time.

It's educating.

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.”
 
lone wolf
+4
#9
I think science loses out in attempting to discredit faith and religion loses out in attempting to discredit science
 
mentalfloss
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

I think science loses out in attempting to discredit faith and religion loses out in attempting to discredit science

Religious people will finally die off in 100 or so years anyway.
 
CDNBear
+1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.”

How true.

I personally have a distrust and disdain for all organized religions. While I try and respect the observances of it's followers. I fully believe that the investigation of any find, artifact or claim. Only serves to better understand our past, collectively and individually.

I fully believe those that dismiss, or denigrate valid research, are afraid of the findings either way.

Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

I think science loses out in attempting to discredit faith and religion loses out in attempting to discredit science

Is proving the validity of a claim, or the authenticity of an artifact really an attempt to discredit?

I think for some it is, like the post quoted following this. But I believe that valid research into the authenticity of such thinsg, is as I already mentioned to DaS.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Religious people will finally die off in 100 or so years anyway.

Not that I think there is any validity to that comment Avro. I'm sure it would please you greatly.
 
mentalfloss
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Not that I think there is any validity to that comment Avro. I'm sure it would please you greatly.


Bill Hicks - Religion - YouTube

 
CDNBear
+2
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Bill Hicks - Religion - YouTube

Yes, I'm aware of the comedic works of Bill Hicks (Being an ardent admirer of dark comedy).

But I certainly wouldn't base a philosophy or an argument on them.

That's just stupid, even for you.
 
AndyF
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Shroud of Turin is not a fake, Vatican says


Science, still unable to disprove the Shroud.

Rome - The Vatican's official newspaper has given strong endorsement to research by Italian scientists that suggests the Shroud of Turin cannot be a medieval fake and may be the authentic burial cloth of Christ.

"For science, the shroud continues to be an 'impossible object' - impossible to falsify," L'Osservatore Romano said in a lengthy article Thursday.

The researchers presented their results with "extreme caution" and had stopped short of putting forward theories that "strayed from science."

But the implication was that the enigmatic marks on the cloth were created at the moment of Christ's Resurrection by some sort of miracle.

After five years of laser experiments, experts from the National Agency for New Technologies and Energy, concluded the imprint of a bearded man's face and crucified body could not be reproduced by modern scientific techniques.

Skeptics have long claimed the shroud is a medieval forgery. Radiocarbon testing conducted by laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Arizona in 1988 appeared to back up that theory, suggesting it dated from between 1260 and 1390.

But those tests were in turn disputed on the basis they were skewed by contamination by fibres from cloth used to repair the relic when it was damaged by fire in the Middle Ages.

"The double image [front and back] of a scourged and crucified man, barely visible on the linen cloth of the Shroud of Turin, has many physical and chemical characteristics that are so particular that the staining ... is impossible to obtain in a laboratory," the Italian experts concluded.
They said the exact shade, texture and depth of the imprints on the cloth could only be produced with the aid of ultraviolet lasers - technology that was clearly not available in medieval times.

The scientists used extremely brief pulses of ultraviolet light to replicate the kind of marks found on the burial cloth. They concluded the iconic image must therefore have been created by "some form of electromagnetic energy (such as a flash of light at short wavelength)."

Carbon dating was done on a sample of a repair done by the nuns in 11th century. The test should have done on areas of the shroud proper.

I would like to believe it is genuine, but I note none of the scientists found it peculiar that the rib cage was not distended has they claim would happen in this form of punishment. After long periods of hanging like this the body cannot support itself and it would be difficult to breathe.

Rigor would have set in by this point and the distended body should have retained this distortion in the crypt.

Andy
 
SLM
+2
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

I think science loses out in attempting to discredit faith and religion loses out in attempting to discredit science

Of course it does. But scientists and religious scholars of merit don't attempt to discredit each other, both are just seeking a greater understanding. That discrediting is usually left to the blowhards of the world, and in my opinion, they usually just come off making themselves look bad.

Every human being believes in something that is intangible at one point or another in their lives.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Of course it does. But scientists and religious scholars of merit don't attempt to discredit each other, both are just seeking a greater understanding. That discrediting is usually left to the blowhards of the world, and in my opinion, they usually just come off making themselves look bad.

Every human being believes in something that is intangible at one point or another in their lives.

There is no shortage of blowhards.
 
spaminator
#17

History Channel - The Real Face of Jesus from the Turin Shroud - YouTube

 
Goober
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

How true.

I personally have a distrust and disdain for all organized religions. While I try and respect the observances of it's followers. I fully believe that the investigation of any find, artifact or claim. Only serves to better understand our past, collectively and individually.

I fully believe those that dismiss, or denigrate valid research, are afraid of the findings either way.

Is proving the validity of a claim, or the authenticity of an artifact really an attempt to discredit?

I think for some it is, like the post quoted following this. But I believe that valid research into the authenticity of such thinsg, is as I already mentioned to DaS.

Not that I think there is any validity to that comment Avro. I'm sure it would please you greatly.

There has been so much controvery over this.From earlier tests to the most recent. I thought it would be of interest. Many things cannot be explained by science.
 
Dexter Sinister
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by AndyFView Post

Carbon dating was done on a sample of a repair done by the nuns in 11th century. The test should have done on areas of the shroud proper.

It was the 16th century, there's no record of the shroud before the 14th century, and the samples were carefully chosen so as not to be on seams or patched areas. You'd have to think the researchers would be pretty stupid to do otherwise. All legitimate evidence points to it being a 14th century fake, starting with the report by the bishop of Turin at the time that he had a confession from the man who made it. But I don't think any of it matters anyway. If the Vatican is so unsure of itself it needs a magic cloth to buttress its claims, they should all just quit and take up something innocuous, like herding sheep. Real sheep.

Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Many things cannot be explained by science.

And science would be the first to admit that, but the Shroud of Turin isn't one of them.
 
Goober
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

It was the 16th century, there's no record of the shroud before the 14th century, and the samples were carefully chosen so as not to be on seams or patched areas. You'd have to think the researchers would be pretty stupid to do otherwise. All legitimate evidence points to it being a 14th century fake, starting with the report by the bishop of Turin at the time that he had a confession from the man who made it. But I don't think any of it matters anyway. If the Vatican is so unsure of itself it needs a magic cloth to buttress its claims, they should all just quit and take up something innocuous, like herding sheep. Real sheep.

And science would be the first to admit that, but the Shroud of Turin isn't one of them.

As I mentioned it still is controversial. I would imagine other tests wil be done.

"The double image [front and back] of a scourged and crucified man, barely visible on the linen cloth of the Shroud of Turin, has many physical and chemical characteristics that are so particular that the staining ... is impossible to obtain in a laboratory," the Italian experts concluded.
They said the exact shade, texture and depth of the imprints on the cloth could only be produced with the aid of ultraviolet lasers - technology that was clearly not available in medieval times.
 
Dexter Sinister
#21
Yep, and they made enough scientific errors to strongly suggest they were working from an another agenda.
Turin ?Shroud? Called ?Supernatural? | Center for Inquiry (external - login to view)
Quite apart from that, the nature of the image is not consistent with Jewish burial practices, the shrouds are not wrapped the way that one was, if it is in fact a burial shroud at all, and there's a separate cloth over the face, so either there should be no image of the face or it should be strongly attenuated compared to the rest of the image. .
 
Goober
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

Yep, and they made enough scientific errors to strongly suggest they were working from an another agenda.
Turin ?Shroud? Called ?Supernatural? | Center for Inquiry (external - login to view)
Quite apart from that, the nature of the image is not consistent with Jewish burial practices, the shrouds are not wrapped the way that one was, if it is in fact a burial shroud at all, and there's a separate cloth over the face, so either there should be no image of the face or it should be strongly attenuated compared to the rest of the image. .

Well that is the purpose of this - to learn. i would hope the Vatican would employ peer reviewed scientists to conduct tests. Random samples for carbon dating would be one. The rest well it could be defined beforehand so there would be an agreed upon process.
 
Spade
+1
#23
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091216-shroud-of-turin-jesus-jerusalem-leprosy/ (external - login to view)

The shroud is a religious icon. It serves to focus belief. Authenticity is irrelevant.
 
petros
+1
#24

Jesus - you said it man - YouTube

 
Niflmir
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

After five years of laser experiments, experts from the National Agency for New Technologies and Energy, concluded the imprint of a bearded man's face and crucified body could not be reproduced by modern scientific techniques.

Of course it can't be, scientists are not artists. I'm sure any art college graduate could reproduce it in a day if you were willing to pay them the millions the Vatican probably wasted on this and other studies. This is just a desperate attempt to get people to forget that the shroud has been radiocarbon dated to ~1300CE.
 
gerryh
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

Of course it can't be, scientists are not artists. I'm sure any art college graduate could reproduce it in a day if you were willing to pay them the millions the Vatican probably wasted on this and other studies. This is just a desperate attempt to get people to forget that the shroud has been radiocarbon dated to ~1300CE.


Did ya read the article? Didn't think so.

Plus, it appears the dating may be in question

"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."
 
Niflmir
+1
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Did ya read the article? Didn't think so.

Plus, it appears the dating may be in question

"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."

I've never heard of vanillin dating before you mentioned it. A cursory search through scientific literature shows that it is a chemical found in vanilla, and that dating of it proceeds through carbon dating. Also, that people use it only for the purposes of dating vanilla, unless they are dating the shroud of Turin. Which is a huge red flag. So I find it unsurprising that extracting trace amounts of a protein from linen where said protein should not occur and then carbon dating that protein is inconclusive.

Not all methods are created equal. Did you know that you can experimentally measure the mathematical constant pi by dropping pins on a sheet of paper? Can you imagine that this is much less accurate than just computing it using for instance arithmetic-geometric mean? If you can't imagine it, then just take my word for it, as I've done both.

Anyways, the whole thing is junk science as I've pointed out. It is in general possible to prove the non-existence of things (in this case they are trying to prove the non-existence of a method to produce the shroud) but not the sort of thing they are trying to disprove, not without knowledge of all the forms of human art. Knowledge which an artist might possess, but not a scientist.
 
lone wolf
+1
#28
I always thought it was kind of neat how the shroud even captured an image of hair. Methinks the Vatican may be a tad biased....
 
damngrumpy
#29
Petros, think of how much money could have been made had they discovered the
sleeping bag. Oh and even more had they made blue jeans back then.
Science is going to lose out when it confronts faith. Science deals with the facts
in front of us, faith it that intangible thing that outstrips what is real.
Even so the Shroud has confounded the world for centuries and it matters not
anyway. We have a shroud with an imprint even if it is real it doesn't mean it was
Christ. There were a lot of people crucified by the Romans. and it went one for a
long time. As for it could only come from using lasers, that doesn't hold water
either, as we don't know what they had for imprinting back then. All we know is
that there was no common business putting imprints on shrouds like they now do
on T Shirts.
 
gerryh
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

I always thought it was kind of neat how the shroud even captured an image of hair. Methinks the Vatican may be a tad biased....


Despite the misleading head line, the Vatican is NOT saying the shroud is not a fake.
 

Similar Threads

24
US-"Patriot" Act...Shroud of Secrecy
by Ocean Breeze | Dec 15th, 2005
5
Vatican To Allow Gay Priests
by missile | Oct 19th, 2005
no new posts