Shroud of Turin proven genuine by REAL science

Originally posted by s0uljah
Why do you care about fire and C14 Rufus and Bear? The C14 has already been shown to be flawed from the microorganisms on the linen.

Originally posted by DocBrown
<SUP>Amazing how these people can dismiss facts concerning anything that most likely was supernatural even when confronted by undisputable proven facts. Yet when&nbsp;a creationist disputes a fact conerning evolution everyone jumps&nbsp;on him/her and attempts to make them look silly.</SUP>

<SUP></SUP>
<SUP>Looks like one would do an in&nbsp;depth study into this subject&nbsp;before debating it. I see people jumping in debating&nbsp;a "flat face" when anyone can&nbsp;see&nbsp;that isn't the case. But they&nbsp;try to stick with it dispite what the human eye can see. Exactly what they say creationist do. Samo samo right?&nbsp;&nbsp;</SUP>

<SUP>

How true.&nbsp;



&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Originally posted by VOW
You got another type of monk in mind, besides Catholic? At that time, the Catholic Church was the ONLY Christian Church, and in possession of Scripture.

You need the supplies, the travel, the facilities, the tools, the TIME, and the support.

I copied these, because they are all OBSERVATIONS of the Shroud itself. I don't know what kind of PROOF you are demanding, other than actually handling the Shroud and seeing for yourself these characterisitics.

I see little more than cloth + pigment

Originally posted by isshinwhat
Do you actually know how much pigment, if any was present in the samples? It has been said that the amount of pigment found in the Shroud is minute, and is not plentiful enough to account for the image. Not only that, but now the gentleman who did the study isn't certain some of what he claimed to be pigment is. Common thought now leans toward the pigment found to be residue from copies made of the Shroud, or iron oxide and not dye at all.

Originally posted by isshinwhat
Bear, were the healings that Peter and Paul did signs? Was the handkerchief that Paul touched, which the faithful passed around to be healed from not a sign in the same way the Shroud of Turin is a sign? If not, then why not?


Neal

The late Dr. Alan Adler, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at Western Connecticut University explained:
"The sticky tape samples were subjected to exhaustive wet chemical analysis after the problem of dealing with the debris and classifying the different fiber types and particles present that were pertinent to the Shroud. The tests were for the presence of proteins (by stains and enzymes), blood components, metallic species, organic structures and functional groups, and, also, solubility by a large series of solvents. The results of these tests were that proteins could only be detected in materials from the blood images, that the blood image materials were those anticipated as derivable from clotted blood, the only metallic species present were covalently linked calcium and iron that could be accounted for as products of the retting process converting flax to linen, iron oxide could only be demonstrated in materials from the blood scorch and water stain areas where its natural occurrence could be anticipated, the only functional groups present were those associated with the cellulose of the linen itself or its dehydrative oxidation products, and solvents did not extract the image chromophore which also could only be bleached by very strong redox agents. Therefore it was concluded that no applied dyes, stains, or pigments, were present and the image chromophore was a conjugated carbonyl produced in the cellulose structure itself by a dehydrative oxidation process. These results and conclusions have been confirmed by a variety of spectroscopic investigations.

"Microscopic examinations of the image areas have revealed a number of interesting physical properties of the image that must be met in any proposed formation mechanism as well as meeting the observed chemical and forensic properties cited above. The image only goes one fiber deep lying on top of the crowns of the treads of the weave of the cloth (unlike the blood images which do penetrate the cloth as they are an "applied" material). The fibers are not cemented together (no binders present), but the image process shows no evidence of capillarity, i.e., the image does not appear under any crossing fibers, and the image fibers are very brittle and show "corroded" surfaces (as would be expected for dehydratively oxidized material). All the colored fibers are uniformly colored, i.e., an exposed fiber is either colored or not colored. This demonstrates that the image seen at the macroscopic level is an areal density image and not a pigment concentration image. Shading. is not accomplished by varying the ‘color’, but by varying the number of colored fibers per unit area at the microlevel. Rubbing these fibers with a teasing needle does not reveal any adherent applied powders to be present, nor can any be seen at high magnification.

"However, the most interesting characteristic of the images is revealed by computer imaging analysis, particularly that done by a VP-8 image analyzer. The body image contains realistic 3-dimensional information relating image density at any particular pixel point to the distance between the cloth and the body at that point. Further, this projective information transfer can be shown to be collimated and anisotropic, neither necessarily orthogonal to the receiving or sending surface. Note, no image appears between the two body image heads as would be consistent with this point. Although we do not have any confirmed explanation for this property, it has been used to test a number of artistic rendition methods and they have all failed to meet this criterion. These methods include albedo (simple reflection as in an ordinary photograph) images from a bust, phosphorescent emission images from this same bust, artistic sketches and paintings of various types, chemical contact images, thermal images, diffusion images, bas reliefs, dry powder contact images, scorching contact with an engraving, and various hybrid mechanisms. These conclusions are in agreement with those earlier reached by a comparison of possible formation mechanisms with the observed scientific data and interestingly enough with many of those ruled out by Vignon in his pioneering studies. It is also of interest to note that starting with artistic criteria, rather than scientific, it can be demonstrated that the Shroud is not a painting."