Shroud of Turin

[cjforJesus]

Except.that.the.aetheist.who took that sample spent the rest of his life arguing it was an added piece from the 13th.century. And.died of cancer believing in Christ and believing.it.was Christ’s Shroud, and spending the end of his life proving this.

I’d say he.had a good enough close up view.seeing as.he did the cutting

wow thats so interesting! Textile experts and all present and an explosive expert from Los alamos does the cutting. Regardless I see no evidence in the video of any repair or anomaly and see no reason why someone would go to such extreme measure to conceal a repair on a non image area.

 

[GKC]

wow thats so interesting! Textile experts and all present and an explosive expert from Los alamos does the cutting. Regardless I see no evidence in the video of any repair or anomaly and see no reason why someone would go to such extreme measure to conceal a repair on a non image area.

Not surprising, given the status of the shroud as a relic.

GKC

 

[cjforJesus]

Would you mind giving your credentials that would cause one to give your conclusion some credibility above those scientists with whom you disagree? Or is your opinion on about the same level as mine?

Steve,it is deductive reasoning and logic. There is NO evidence of any anomaly in that cut. There is also no reason to believe someone would go to such lengths to try to invisibly repair a corner. I just do not buy it.I am not criticiZing Rogers but maybe he was seeing what he wanted to see. His friend Barry was already a firm believer in the shroud so that could have influenced him.

 

[SteveVH]

Look at the sample in the video.This is the ACTUAL cut as far as I know.Can you see any evidence of some secret repair.I do not and I have frozen and enlarged it many times.

Before they even cut it they examined photos to look for any abnormality and found NONE. I believe the C14 dates were accurate and that the Shroud is an amazing piece of art.

From Wikispaces
“The positive test for vanillin as well as the presence of cotton actually spliced to linen and tinted as discovered by Ray Rogers establishes that the sample site selected for the 1988 C-14 test was anomalous and moreover that it was young. The reasons for this have not been firmly established. One theory set forth by Joe Marino and Sue Benford is that the site contained an invisible patch. This thesis is controversial, however it currently constitutes the main theory for why the region is anomalous.”

USA Today - March 30, 2013
*"New scientific tests on the Shroud of Turin, which went on display Saturday in a special TV appearance introduced by the Pope, dates the cloth to ancient times, challenging earlier experiments dating it only to the Middle Ages.

Many experts have stood by a 1988 carbon-14 dating of scraps of the cloth carried out by labs in Oxford, Zurich and Arizona that dated it from 1260 to 1390, which, of course, would rule out its used during the time of Christ.

The new test, by scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy, used the same fibers from the 1988 tests but disputes the findings. The new examination dates the shroud to between 300 BC and 400 AD, which would put it in the era of Christ.

It determined that the earlier results may have been skewed by contamination from fibers used to repair the cloth when it was damaged by fire in the Middle Ages, the British newspaper reported. The cloth has been kept at the cathedral since 1578.

He also said his tests also supported earlier results claiming to have found traces of dust and pollen on that shroud that could only have come from the Holy Land.

The latest findings are contained in a new Italian-language book — Il Mistero Della Sindone or The Mystery of the Shroud, by Giulio Fanti, a professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at Padua University, and Saverio Gaeta, a journalist."*

I had no idea it was Rogers who did the cut! regardless you can see clearly the sample looks exactly like the adjacent areas.

Yes, especially to the naked eye. That is the beauty of the art of invisible weaving, using the same material, or material made to mimic it (cotton), and following the exact type of weave pattern.

 

[cjforJesus]

Someone please look at that 22 second shroud video of the sampling procedure. At 18 seconds the area cut is clearly shown.Where does Mrs Benford say that a patch of material was spliced in? Where exactly is the seam supposed to be? Is this supposedly new cloth sew onto old or as other speculations another piece from an inconspicuous area spliced in? I just do not see it.

 

[cjforJesus]

From Wikispaces
“The positive test for vanillin as well as the presence of cotton actually spliced to linen and tinted as discovered by Ray Rogers establishes that the sample site selected for the 1988 C-14 test was anomalous and moreover that it was young. The reasons for this have not been firmly established. One theory set forth by Joe Marino and Sue Benford is that the site contained an invisible patch. This thesis is controversial, however it currently constitutes the main theory for why the region is anomalous.”

USA Today - March 30, 2013
*"New scientific tests on the Shroud of Turin, which went on display Saturday in a special TV appearance introduced by the Pope, dates the cloth to ancient times, challenging earlier experiments dating it only to the Middle Ages.

Many experts have stood by a 1988 carbon-14 dating of scraps of the cloth carried out by labs in Oxford, Zurich and Arizona that dated it from 1260 to 1390, which, of course, would rule out its used during the time of Christ.

The new test, by scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy, used the same fibers from the 1988 tests but disputes the findings. The new examination dates the shroud to between 300 BC and 400 AD, which would put it in the era of Christ.

It determined that the earlier results may have been skewed by contamination from fibers used to repair the cloth when it was damaged by fire in the Middle Ages, the British newspaper reported. The cloth has been kept at the cathedral since 1578.

He also said his tests also supported earlier results claiming to have found traces of dust and pollen on that shroud that could only have come from the Holy Land.

The latest findings are contained in a new Italian-language book — Il Mistero Della Sindone or The Mystery of the Shroud, by Giulio Fanti, a professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at Padua University, and Saverio Gaeta, a journalist."*

Yes, especially to the naked eye. That is the beauty of the art of invisible weaving, using the same material, or material made to mimic it (cotton), and following the exact type of weave pattern.

Steve do you actually realize how ludicrous that sounds? To go to such great lengths to repair an edge.I am sorry but there is absolutely no logic in that considering how obvious and tacky the repair to the fire holes is.

I have read tons of opinions and articles on the shroud and I am about the only Catholic I know who believes it to be a work of art. The C14 has never been refuted and the custodian refuses any more testing. So it stands as being from 1200 around when it first appeared in the historic record.

I respect those who believe it is real but logic tells me it is not. God bless

 

[ffg]

I think it’s real, but it’s purpose isn’t to be real / fake.

It’s to change hearts, as they (hearts) relate to God.

If it is doing this, as it sounds like has been documented by at least one person who went in to study it and changed his opinion on God, then it’s mission is accomplished.

From what I’ve read and heard, key tests were done on the edge of the cloth. Just seems logical that cloth 2000 years old, if that, would need to be repaired through time and the most logical areas to repair would be the outskirts, if it was kept in generally ok environments that didn’t eat away or burn away the center.

I’d be curious of what folks thought about, or if folks knew of other mind blowing relics, like Eucharist miracles, or incorrupt bodies (like Bl. Margaret of Costello) (Probably for a different thread)

 

[SteveVH]

Steve do you actually realize how ludicrous that sounds? To go to such great lengths to repair an edge.I am sorry but there is absolutely no logic in that considering how obvious and tacky the repair to the fire holes is.

Not ludicrous to one engaged in repairing such a holy thing.

I have read tons of opinions and articles on the shroud and I am about the only Catholic I know who believes it to be a work of art. The C14 has never been refuted and the custodian refuses any more testing.

How do you just dismiss the study done in 2013? It has certainly been refuted.

 

[cjforJesus]

I think it’s real, but it’s purpose isn’t to be real / fake.

It’s to change hearts, as they (hearts) relate to God.

If it is doing this, as it sounds like has been documented by at least one person who went in to study it and changed his opinion on God, then it’s mission is accomplished.

From what I’ve read and heard, key tests were done on the edge of the cloth. Just seems logical that cloth 2000 years old, if that, would need to be repaired through time and the most logical areas to repair would be the outskirts, if it was kept in generally ok environments that didn’t eat away or burn away the center.

I’d be curious of what folks thought about, or if folks knew of other mind blowing relics, like Eucharist miracles, or incorrupt bodies (like Bl. Margaret of Costello)

as far as I know it is still an icon,and the Catholic church will never be able to claim it is the burial shroud of Jesus. I believe it to be a pious work of art created to inspire veneration of the passion of Jesus.

It seems illogical that invisible repairs would be done to a corner especially when there is absolutely NO evidence in the video clip of any anomaly. I think many people just want it to be real and ignore the scientific evidence. Science and faith do not conflict.

 

[cjforJesus]

Not ludicrous to one engaged in repairing such a holy thing.

How do you just dismiss the study done in 2013? It has certainly been refuted.

I have no idea what sample was tested in 2013 because to my knowledge the 1988 sample was mostly destroyed during the procedure. You cannot refute something unless you can prove what you tested and the chain of custody. Lots of people are claiming it has been refuted but no one has been able to C14 date it again. It could easily be done on the leftover fragments from the restoration but the custodian is not allowing it.

If you are referring to Fanti and the method he created to date fabrics I would be very skeptical of that. The custodians have no reason not to allow labs to carbon date the remaining fragments from the restoration.

 

[ffg]

as far as I know it is still an icon,and the Catholic church will never be able to claim it is the burial shroud of Jesus. I believe it to be a pious work of art created to inspire veneration of the passion of Jesus.

It seems illogical that invisible repairs would be done to a corner especially when there is absolutely NO evidence in the video clip of any anomaly. I think many people just want it to be real and ignore the scientific evidence. Science and faith do not conflict.

I do agree science and faith do not conflict, considering God made what humans discover, seems pretty hard to conflict.

In bold is curious to me, not least of which a video clip (guessing youtube?) is being used to build an opinion, potentially without historical context.

However, wouldn’t a good repair be one that would show “NO evidence in the video clip of any anomaly”?

Though I must admit, I have probably not seen stated ‘video clip’.

I do like to read though.

 

[cjforJesus]

I do agree science and faith do not conflict, considering God made what humans discover, seems pretty hard to conflict.

In bold is curious to me, not least of which a video clip (guessing youtube?) is being used to build an opinion, potentially without historical context.

However, wouldn’t a good repair be one that would show “NO evidence in the video clip of any anomaly”?

Though I must admit, I have probably not seen stated ‘video clip’.

I do like to read though.

Look at the short clip taken from the shroud documentary.It certainly looks authentic . It is clear evidence that the sample taken for carbon dating was representative of the whole cloth. There were even special photographs taken at the original study period by STURP and examined to insure the sample was adequate.

 

[GKC]

I have no idea what sample was tested in 2013 because to my knowledge the 1988 sample was mostly destroyed during the procedure. You cannot refute something unless you can prove what you tested and the chain of custody. Lots of people are claiming it has been refuted but no one has been able to C14 date it again. It could easily be done on the leftover fragments from the restoration but the custodian is not allowing it.

Heimberger’s paper

3rd time I’ve mentioned it.

GKC

 

[cjforJesus]

Heimberger’s paper

3rd time I’ve mentioned it.

GKC

I could only find mention of a man named Fanti.I thought no more C14 tests were being done.

I have studied that short clip intensely and find it highly unlikely that the area was spliced in with weaving. Look at how complex yet irregular some of it is. I doubt somebody could reproduce that pattern accurately. No one can show mw where Benford claims this hidden woven seam is

 

[GKC]

I could only find mention of a man named Fanti.I thought no more C14 tests were being done.

Heimberger’s paper dates from last year. Title:“The origin of Rogers’ Raes and C14 Samples”.

For a subject I have only a passing interest in, this is certainly padding my post count.

GKC

 

[SteveVH]

I have no idea what sample was tested in 2013 because to my knowledge the 1988 sample was mostly destroyed during the procedure. You cannot refute something unless you can prove what you tested and the chain of custody. Lots of people are claiming it has been refuted but no one has been able to C14 date it again. It could easily be done on the leftover fragments from the restoration but the custodian is not allowing it.

It was the left over fragments that were tested, using infra-red light and spectroscopy – the measurement of radiation intensity through wavelengths.

 

[cjforJesus]

It was the left over fragments that were tested, using infra-red light and spectroscopy – the measurement of radiation intensity through wavelengths.

sorry but that is not an accurate means to date an artifact as far as I know. Why dont they just carbon date the leftover pieces from the repair??When they did the restoration a lot of material was removed from around the burn holes and was saved.

 

[GKC]

sorry but that is not an accurate means to date an artifact as far as I know. Why dont they just carbon date the leftover pieces from the repair??When they did the restoration a lot of material was removed from around the burn holes and was saved.

Heimberger’s paper.

GKC

 

[cjforJesus]

Heimberger’s paper.

GKC

you are saying Heimberger carbon dated a sample? I cannot find this statement anywhere.I thought everything was pretty much destroyed except the fibers from the vacuum filter that Fanti used.

 

[GKC]

you are saying Heimberger carbon dated a sample? I cannot find this statement anywhere.I thought everything was pretty much destroyed except the fibers from the vacuum filter that Fanti used.

Read the title of the paper again.

GKC