News0 min ago
The Turin Shroud
25 Answers
Does anyone have any thoughts or theories about it - and does anyone know what the latest research has divulged?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
My point is the accuracy of the technique - which Theland was questioning - is reinforced by the agreement of all 3 centres - I did point out the contamination issues, maybe I should have done so stronger but I rather assume we're all familiar with them.
I'd have thought Vatican officials would have nothing to gain but substituting a C14th century sample - I could see the point if the test had said 1st Century - or are you suggesting that someone else made a switch and if so who?
I think you miss the point about the vase - which is that there existed artistic techniques as far back as 2000 years ago that we cannot replicate or understand.
You claim it is an artifact but as far as I can see the only reason you have to argue this is that you cannot see any way it could be done otherwise.
That's a bit like saying I don't understand how Paul Daniels does his magic so there must be a supernatural explanation.
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
I'd have thought Vatican officials would have nothing to gain but substituting a C14th century sample - I could see the point if the test had said 1st Century - or are you suggesting that someone else made a switch and if so who?
I think you miss the point about the vase - which is that there existed artistic techniques as far back as 2000 years ago that we cannot replicate or understand.
You claim it is an artifact but as far as I can see the only reason you have to argue this is that you cannot see any way it could be done otherwise.
That's a bit like saying I don't understand how Paul Daniels does his magic so there must be a supernatural explanation.
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Naomi, I was only joking about Joseph's DNA! Radiocarbon dating is very reliable and relies on the assumption that carbon-14 production has been constant over time (by cosmic ray bombardment of nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere) Many organic artefacts, whose age can be independently corroborated, can be dated accurately by this method (eg. a lock of Anne Boleyn's hair ca. 1532)
If the scientists were directed to remove samples from "less important" areas of the Turin Shroud, ie. the areas more recently repaired by the nuns after the fire, then presumable the shroud's age will appear more recent. The larger and more numerous the samples tested the more reliable the age will be. Taken to its logical conclusion we end up with no shroud!
The first true photographic method documented was probably that of Joseph Niepce (early 19th century) who produced an image on a layer of bitumen after an exposure of several hours.
Using a camera obscura and sunlight, it is possible to project the image of a person on to some damp cloth, this would produce a negative image. Could large lenses be made in the 15th century?
If the scientists were directed to remove samples from "less important" areas of the Turin Shroud, ie. the areas more recently repaired by the nuns after the fire, then presumable the shroud's age will appear more recent. The larger and more numerous the samples tested the more reliable the age will be. Taken to its logical conclusion we end up with no shroud!
The first true photographic method documented was probably that of Joseph Niepce (early 19th century) who produced an image on a layer of bitumen after an exposure of several hours.
Using a camera obscura and sunlight, it is possible to project the image of a person on to some damp cloth, this would produce a negative image. Could large lenses be made in the 15th century?
jake-the-peg, you have misread me. I most certainly did not claim that the shroud is an artefact; my whole argument is that it could not possibly have been because (a) there is no known way in which the marking could have been produced unnaturally, and (b) the "artist" could not have "painted" in negative.
It is the testers who, having dated the cloth to the 14th century, then assumed that it was, ergo, an artefact. But why, when the biggest problems are not concerned with the date of the cloth but wth the image itself?
If you read the book I mentioned then you will see a vast amount of evidence, down to the microscopic level, to demonstrate that the three samples did not come from the shroud. The only claim that it did is made by the Vatican officials who handed over the sealed samples. Faced with scientific evidence on the one hand and the word of professional religionists on the other, I know which I prefer.
This is why I object to the injection of religion into the study. If the Vatican itself secretly believes the cloth to be the shroud of Jesus, and that the markings were made naturally by a combination of sweat and unguents, then they would be very concerned because the blood was obviously still flowing while the body was in the shroud. And corpses don't bleed.
But that aspect doesn't concern me. So far I think the only explanation is such a natural one, without the religious decoration. I repeat, not an artefact. Read the book.
It is the testers who, having dated the cloth to the 14th century, then assumed that it was, ergo, an artefact. But why, when the biggest problems are not concerned with the date of the cloth but wth the image itself?
If you read the book I mentioned then you will see a vast amount of evidence, down to the microscopic level, to demonstrate that the three samples did not come from the shroud. The only claim that it did is made by the Vatican officials who handed over the sealed samples. Faced with scientific evidence on the one hand and the word of professional religionists on the other, I know which I prefer.
This is why I object to the injection of religion into the study. If the Vatican itself secretly believes the cloth to be the shroud of Jesus, and that the markings were made naturally by a combination of sweat and unguents, then they would be very concerned because the blood was obviously still flowing while the body was in the shroud. And corpses don't bleed.
But that aspect doesn't concern me. So far I think the only explanation is such a natural one, without the religious decoration. I repeat, not an artefact. Read the book.
