Italian scientist reproduces Shroud of Turin

  • Thread starter Thread starter MercyMia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MercyMia

Guest
Not sure what to think of it. Obviously the Church never claimed that it was belonging th Christ…on the other hand we still have not seen this suppossed reproduction and the scientiest was funded by a pro-athiest group. This article makes it sound like the argument has been put to rest…but I don’t really think it is. Article to follow.

ROME (Reuters) – An Italian scientist says he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin, a feat that he says proves definitively that the linen some Christians revere as Jesus Christ’s burial cloth is a medieval fake.

The shroud, measuring 14 feet, 4 inches by 3 feet, 7 inches bears the image, eerily reversed like a photographic negative, of a crucified man some believers say is Christ.

More…
news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091005/sc_nm/us_italy_shroud
 
“Money has no odor,” he said. “This was done scientifically. If the Church wants to fund me in the future, here I am.”

Right. I guess this guy isn’t familiar with politics.

As for the Shroud being genuine, the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize it so I don’t have an opinion on it. But if this scientist says that his ability to re-produce is “a feat that he says proves definitively that the linen some Christians revere as Jesus Christ’s burial cloth is a medieval fake”, then I have to question his understanding of logic.
 
This article kind of bothers me also because of the “open and shut case” perspective it takes.

For instance this quote:

“The accuracy of the 1988 tests was challenged by some hard-core believers who said restorations of the Shroud in past centuries had contaminated the results.”

From my understanding it was not just “hard-believers” but many scientists who felt the results may have been contaminated. It is just good science to explore the possiblity of contamination and to re-examine things when newer technology becomes available.
 
But there is so much more then the image. There were microbes from plants on the shroud that could only be found in certain parts of Palestine and much more.
 
This guy hasn’t proven anything yet. He’s merely claiming an outcome that the atheists, who funded this, wanted.

Let him surrender the reproduction and we will see. As for the original carbon-dating, the patch tested was taken from a repaired part of the shroud and not the original.
 
I have never understood the immense fascination with the Shroud. Our faith comes from God and from within.

I really don’t believe that any of the supposed most important relics related to Christ’s Passion or the True Cross are likely to be genuine. I study the medieval period and faking relics was HUGE- I don’t think it can be over-emphasized- the industry of fabricating relics.

I do however believe that the vast majority of other relics authenticated by the Church are genuine. I just do not believe in the above mentioned - neither do I think this issue is very important.

The coolest relic I ever saw, however, was St. Luke’s head! It was really something!
 
I have no strong opinion as to whether the Shroud of Turin actually is Christ’s burial cloth. Regarding this scientists reproduction, however, I am suspicious as to whether the technique he used would be able to reproduce the image of the Shroud.

They placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A mask was used for the face.

It is possible that by this approach he was able to create an image with the same physical characteristics on the cloth, that is, only the surface of the threads is discolored and there is no presence of pigment. This does not, however, resolve the shape of the image itself. If you lay a cloth over a person you can get a good copy of the flat parts of the body like the chest but you cannot get a perspective representation of the face. If the cloth is formed to the face then when the cloth is straightened out the cheeks will be much too wide, but if the cloth is not formed to the face then you can’t get the cheeks at all. He may have evaded this problem by using the mask but, as someone else pointed out, there is a lot more going on with the Shroud than simply an image on a piece of cloth.

Ender
 
The atheistic premise is that without proof there can be no belief, yet their obsession with disproving God’s existence betrays a cotradicion in their logic. They are like hamsters running the wheel to nowhere, caged by their own arrogance. I laugh at their anger-ridden efforts in futility. They all seem so grim and dour…as if there is no room for joy in them. Pity them…but, please, don’t fear them. Pray for their conversion. The English intellectual and agnostic Malcolm Muggeridge converted to Christianity later in life…perhaps the same fate awaits Christopher Hitchens and rest of the atheistic media sensations…
 
Praying for the non-believers myself.

If you ask me, this is just another attempt by an atheist group to get people to stop believing in God by trying to disprove a relic. Call me irrational, but sometimes I can’t help but feel that.

I personally think the Shroud may be genuine, but if it’s proven a fake, it won’t shatter my faith. Fake relics don’t disprove God’s existence, when we have so many genuine ones.
 
it may be jesus’ burial cloth, it doesnt prove that he rose from the dead.
 
Zea_mays said:
it may be jesus’ burial cloth, it doesnt prove that he rose from the dead.
Click to expand...
Actually, one of the interesting possibilities of the shroud is that the man who was burried in it passed through it and thus the markings penetrate the fabric, much like the tilma of Guadalupe, where the markings are part of the fabric, not on the fabric. This question has not been resolved by the scientists who have studied the shroud.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Michael_C said:
But there is so much more then the image. There were microbes from plants on the shroud that could only be found in certain parts of Palestine and much more.
Click to expand...
The weight of evidence suggests that it is a fake and the ability to reproduce the fake is the final nail in the coffin. In regards to those microbes; they were contaminated samples.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
The weight of evidence suggests that it is a fake and the ability to reproduce the fake is the final nail in the coffin. In regards to those microbes; they were contaminated samples.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. I’m neither believe nor deny the veracity of the shroud. But there are still unanswered questions. One of them is whether or not the duplicate that the good doctor has produced in the lab is actually a duplicate in every detail. They need to be examined side by side. Then there is another question that needs to be answered, whether or not the carbon dating was valid or should it be done again. There were complaints by member of the scientific community that the sample used for the carbon dating was contaminated by previous attempts to repair the shroud. I’m not really sure if the carbon dating has been done again, if not, why not.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
“We have shown that is possible to reproduce something which has the same characteristics as the Shroud,”
Click to expand...
What’s possible? Something ? All characterisitics? some characterisitcs? Considering the importance of the subject matter to so many people the ambiguity seems disingenuous.
a feat that he says proves definitively that the linen some Christians revere as Jesus Christ’s burial cloth is a medieval fake.
Click to expand...
That is not a scientific conclusion. I predict an imitation that lacks most of the mysterious characteristics of the shroud. A failed effort that the funders want squeezed for a smidgen of the hoped for effect.

The fact that a possibility is claimed to be definitive proof smacks of two bit showmanship. This is how a lost investment is treated. Step right up folks!
 
Benadam said:
What’s possible? Something ? All characterisitics? some characterisitcs? Considering the importance of the subject matter to so many people the ambiguity seems disingenuous.

That is not a scientific conclusion. I predict an imitation that lacks most of the mysterious characteristics of the shroud. A failed effort that the funders want squeezed for a smidgen of the hoped for effect.

The fact that a possibility is claimed to be definitive proof smacks of two bit showmanship. This is how a lost investment is treated. Step right up folks!
Click to expand...
But we don’t really know this. All we have to go on is an interview. We have not read the Doctor’s notes. He has an entire set of research notes and his report on the process. Now his notes have to be compared to those of the examiners for similarities and discrepancies. I wouldn’t be too quick to suggest that anything is unorthodox here until I read the notes. Well, I’m not going to read the notes, but someone who knows something about chemistry, history and archeology. And that isn’t me.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
But we don’t really know this. All we have to go on is an interview. We have not read the Doctor’s notes. He has an entire set of research notes and his report on the process. Now his notes have to be compared to those of the examiners for similarities and discrepancies. I wouldn’t be too quick to suggest that anything is unorthodox here until I read the notes. Well, I’m not going to read the notes, but someone who knows something about chemistry, history and archeology. And that isn’t me.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
We will see Brother JR. You are right of course, it is better to take folks at face value unless they have demonstrated a reason not to. I know I seem to be teetering. But I think I’ve got reason to support my prediction. I’m an artist accomplished in various visual media. I also work in a chemical laboratory. Im just a cookbook chemist but I think I know pretty well how acid rubbed into linen would look. The Doc’s technique seems developed for reproducing a negative rather than a positive image.

He used pigment. They haven’t found any on the Shroud. Acidic pigment rubbed on the linen… Ever take a leaf put it under a piece of paper and rub it with a crayon? You get a negative image of the leaf. The pigment, like the crayon, rubbed into the areas where the body protrudes darkening the areas where highlights would be. The acid increases contrast by darkening slightly more where areas portrude more.

Like the veins of the leaf. If you took a photo of your crayon rubbed leaf and checked out the negative you would see the eerie positive image of the leaf.
 
Baloney-he didn’t reproduce it.

Yes, the Church hasn’t made a difinitive statement regarding the Shroud.

I believe it was supernaturally made. Just like Veronica’s Veil. Our Lady of Guadalupe on the Tilma of Juan Diego.

…Is this a test?..I recognize My Lord. It’s the same image as The Divine Mercy. My Shepherd.

Hi Jesus…It’s me, Dawn.
 
"Experts question scientist’s claim of reproducing Shroud of Turin

Colorado Springs, Colo., Oct 6, 2009 / 09:27 pm (CNA).- An Italian scientist is claiming to have re-created the burial cloth believed to have covered the crucified body of Jesus, called the Shroud of Turin. However, CNA spoke with experts who maintain that there are still several major differences between the new shroud and the ancient one."…

Entire article here: catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17323
 
So, let me get this straight. If someone successfully forges a Van Gogh painting, would it definitively prove that Van Gogh did not paint the original? This scientist is not very scientific.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top