Shroud of Turin proven genuine by REAL science

JohnR7 · #**421** 3rd July 2003, 05:39 AM

Originally Posted by notto

So, I guess if the Shroud is real because the majority of those that studied it conclude it was, then evolution is valid and the earth is really really old.

As Dr. Kurk Wise says: "Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one".

In 1978, 20 scientiest went in with four tons of scientific equipment to check out the shroud. They said: "We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved." http://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm

JohnR7 · #**422** 3rd July 2003, 05:58 AM

Originally Posted by Arikay

What are the latest studies on the Shroud?

who were the scientists the studied it?

The most compleat study was done in 1978. "In October of 1978 the STURP team spent 120 continuous hours conducting their examination of the Shroud. To this day, scientists around the world use the data gathered by STURP for their Shroud research. Even the Vatican has stated that the material gathered in 1978 constitutes the official scientific data available for Shroud research and it has no plans to allow any further testing, except in the area of conservation of the cloth itself." http://www.shroud.com/78exam.htm

Why does the c-14 dating list it as being at the wrong date?

The c-14 testing was very controversal. The original protocol to be used in 1988 was so badly breached that the results are highly questionable. It is believed that they actually tested surface material on the shroud and not the shroud itself.

Because of a "urban myth" that science wants to use the shroud to clone Jesus, the Catholic Church has now for the most part not allowed anymore testing to be done on the shroud.

Arikay · #**423** 3rd July 2003, 06:28 AM

I also find it interesting that one site suggests blood was found, and another site suggests it was just paint.
I would probably go with the paint idea, since as they mentioned the blood shouldnt have been red.

If they were to release it, it would probably be pretty easy to tell as technology has advanced a lot in the last 5 years, let alone 25.

JohnR7 · #**424** 3rd July 2003, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by Arikay

I also find it interesting that one site suggests blood was found, and another site suggests it was just paint.
I would probably go with the paint idea, since as they mentioned the blood shouldnt have been red.

If they were to release it, it would probably be pretty easy to tell as technology has advanced a lot in the last 5 years, let alone 25.

So are you suggesting that 20 scientiest 25 years ago could not tell the difference between blood and paint? If that is the case, then it sure would appear that science has come a long way in the last 25 years.

I do not think the results would be any different now then what they were 25 years ago. Although it would give us all something to read and study up on the lastest research. But I am sure the results would be the same, science would not be able to falsify it and they would not be able to show that it is the real shroud.

I for one would like to see a modern DNA test run on the blood on the shroud. That would be interesting. But that is the one test that the Catholic Church esp. does not want to allow.

Arikay · #**425** 3rd July 2003, 07:19 AM

Im saying that the page you linked to about the shroud never said anything about the fact that there were reports it was actually paint. That no blood was actually found on the shroud, but only red substance on the sticky tape that the site had pictured, and that the blood should have been black, or much darker if it was that old.

Frumious Bandersnatch · #**426** 3rd July 2003, 07:38 AM

The c-14 testing was very controversal. The original protocol to be used in 1988 was so badly breached that the results are highly questionable. It is believed that they actually tested surface material on the shroud and not the shroud itself.

Where do you get this? Three labs were given samples of the shroud and linens of known dates. They did not know which was which. All agreed on the date of the shroud as late 13 to mid 14th century and dated the other linens to their known dates.

The attempts of shroud believers to discredit the C14 dates all seem rather ad hoc to me.

So are you suggesting that 20 scientiest 25 years ago could not tell the difference between blood and paint? If that is the case, then it sure would appear that science has come a long way in the last 25 years.

I do not think the results would be any different now then what they were 25 years ago. Although it would give us all something to read and study up on the lastest research. But I am sure the results would be the same, science would not be able to falsify it and they would not be able to show that it is the real shroud.

I for one would like to see a modern DNA test run on the blood on the shroud.

That would be interesting. But that is the one test that the Catholic Church esp. does not want to allow.

I think there is still some controversy as the the nature of this "blood". Even so there could be actual blood on the shroud without it being the blood of Christ or even human blood.

Do you believe the Bible is inerrant? Have you read John 19:40 and John 20:5-7.

The Shroud certainly doesn't agree with that account with multiple linens and a separate napkin for his face.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

JohnR7 · #**427** 3rd July 2003, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by Frumious Bandersnatch

I think there is still some controversy as the the nature of this "blood". Even so there could be actual blood on the shroud without it being the blood of Christ or even human blood.

Which Investigator for the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) do you feel is in question or not dependable here?

Joseph S. Accetta, Lockheed Corporation*
Steven Baumgart, U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories*
John D. German, U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories*
Ernest H. Brooks II, Brooks Institute of Photography*
Mark Evans, Brooks Institute of Photography*
Vernon D. Miller, Brooks Institute of Photography*
Robert Bucklin, Harris County,Texas, Medical Examiner's Office
Donald Devan, Oceanographic Services Inc.*
Rudolph J. Dichtl, University of Colorado*
Robert Dinegar, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
Donald & Joan Janney, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
J. Ronald London, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
Roger A. Morris, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
Ray Rogers, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
Larry Schwalbe, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories
Diane Soran, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories
Kenneth E. Stevenson, IBM*
Al Adler, Western Connecticut State University
Thomas F. D'Muhala, Nuclear Technology Corporation*
Jim Drusik, Los Angeles County Museum
Joseph Gambescia, St. Agnes Medical Center
Roger & Marty Gilbert, Oriel Corporation*
Thomas Haverty, Rocky Mountain Thermograph*
John Heller, New England Institute
John P. Jackson, U.S. Air Force Academy*
Eric J. Jumper, U.S. Air Force Academy*
Jean Lorre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory*
Donald J. Lynn, Jet Propulsion Laboratory*
Robert W. Mottern, Sandia Laboratories*
Samuel Pellicori, Santa Barbara Research Center*
Barrie M. Schwortz, Barrie Schwortz Studios*
Note: The researchers marked with an * participated directly in the 1978 Examination in Turin. All others are STURP research members who worked with the data or samples after the team returned to the United States.

Arikay · #**428** 3rd July 2003, 08:19 AM

Well, I would question the photographers ability to analyze the red substance.

I just find it interesting that there are conflicting reports on shroud findings, and that the c-14 dating dates it at the wrong date.

Frumious Bandersnatch · #**429** 3rd July 2003, 08:21 AM

Which of those researchers claimed to have proven that the shroud has the blood of Christ on it?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

JohnR7 · #**430** 3rd July 2003, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by Frumious Bandersnatch

The Shroud certainly doesn't agree with that account with multiple linens and a separate napkin for his face.

"In the Cathedral of Oviedo in northern Spain is a linen cloth called the Sudarium Christi or the Face Cloth of Christ. It is often referred to as the Cloth of Oviedo. Modern studies of the Spanish Centre for Sindonology (Dr. Jose Villalain, Jaime Izquierdo and Guillermo Heras of the University of Valencia as noted by Oviedo scholar Mark Guscin) via infrared and ultraviolet photography and the electron microscope have demonstrated that this Cloth, along with the Shroud of Turin, both touched the same face. "http://www.theshroudofturin.com/evidence.htm