Shroud of Turin is not a fake, Vatican says

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
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)."
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
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.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
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.

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.

http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/

http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/

I love the Skeptical Inquirer.
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,665
113
Northern Ontario,
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.

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

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
“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.

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.

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.
 

AndyF

Electoral Member
Jan 5, 2007
384
7
18
Ont
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

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
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

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,614
2,362
113
Toronto, ON
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.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
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

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
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.

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

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
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.