How the Shroud of Turin could have been faked...

[Michie]

That’s right, an Italian scientist whose work was funded by an Italian association of atheists and agnostics has undertaken some experiments that he claims “prove” the Shroud of Turin isn’t really the burial cloth of Jesus, but rather a fraud created in medieval times.

What is the conclusive research that the scientist has conducted, that allegedly refutes the substantial body of scientific findings that suggest the cloth was indeed wrapped around the body of Jesus following his crucifixion?

According to this Reuters article, it consists of nothing more than the fact that the scientist has managed to come up with a complicated technique to create an image on a linen cloth that looks like the one on the Shroud. He hasn’t demonstrated, in any way, that this technique is in fact the one that actually created the image on the Shroud — merely that you can create a similar image using his procedures.

Obviously it remains altogether possible that the actual image on the Shroud was created in a quite different way, by coming into to contact with the battered and broken face and body of Christ as he lay in his tomb in the hours following his brutal torture and subsequent execution by crucifixion.

But for some reason, this Italian scientist (and, one assumes, the religious disbelievers who paid for his research) has proffered this research as compelling evidence of the Shroud’s inauthenticity.

The Church, for its part, has always adhered to a far more judicious approach to assessing whether the Shroud is indeed Christ’s burial cloth. Since there is no authoritative tradition attesting to that fact, the Church stresses this is not an article of faith that any Catholic is required to believe.

Moreover, Church authorities continue to make the Shroud available to scientists in order to assess its possible authenticity with the best means available. To date, those tests have yielded conflicting results. But some of the data strongly points in the direction of a supernatural explanation for the generation of the image of Christ on the cloth. Other evidence, such as the fact that the weave of the Shroud is consistent not with medieval weavers but rather with the techniques employed in the Holy Land in the first century, supports the conclusion that the cloth was indeed created in the Holy Land at the time of Jesus.

In any event, as the Reuters article notes, the Church insists that the most important lesson to take away from any contemplation of the bruised countenance and broken body that is represented on the Shroud of Turin is this one: That whether or not the Shroud is the actual burial cloth of Jesus, it serves as a powerful reminder of the brutal suffering and the cruel death that Our Lord endured in Jerusalem at the end of his earthly life, as a loving sacrifice for the salvation of all humanity.

Speaking during a May 1998 visit to the Shroud in Turin, Pope John Paul II stressed the Church does not regard the Shroud’s authenticity as a matter of Christian faith. “As it is not a matter of faith, the Church has no specific competence to pronounce itself on these questions,” he said. “It entrusts the task of research to scientists, to arrive at appropriate answers for questions related to this cloth.”

Emphasized John Paul, “What really counts for believers is that the holy shroud is a mirror of the Gospel.”

http://www.ncregister.com/daily/atheist-funded_researcher_shroud_of_turin_is_a_fraud/

 

[kisstheson]

John 20: 6-7 - Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, 7and the cloth that had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself.

I'll go read AMDG's link now.

yes the article will address what the seperate wrappings were.

My point is Matthew talks about the shroud being one long piece that covered the body of Jesus.

Hope you get back to me.

 

[Joachim]

.... I keep telling people that the process was manmade somehow and this is how.....

The image is NOT necessarily a miracle.

And could have been made using 14th century technology.

Shroud of Turin replica proves medieval techniques could make relic, say scientists | Mail Online

Please take this topic out of this section. This topic directly calls in to question the Vatican and so should not be in this section.

 

[Michie]

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 till several major differences between the new shroud and the ancient one.

According to Reuters, Luigi Garlaschelli, an organic chemistry professor at the University of Pavia announced that he and his team “have shown it is possible to reproduce something which has the same characteristics as the Shroud.” The scientist plans to present his findings at a conference on the paranormal this weekend in Italy.

The Shroud of Turin is considered by many to bear an image of the face of Jesus Christ. Made of herring bone linen, the shroud is nearly four feet by 14 feet and bears faint brown discolorations forming the negative image of a crucified man.

The shroud’s positive image, revealed by modern photography, shows the outline of a bearded man. While skeptics contend that the shroud is a medieval forgery, scientists have been unable to explain how the image appeared on the cloth.

Garlaschelli and his team, who were funded by an Italian association of atheists and agnostics, created their image by placing the linen over a volunteer before rubbing it with a pigment called ochre with traces of acid.

The linen was then “aged” by heating it in an oven and washing it with water. Reuters reports that the team then added blood stains, burn holes and water stains to finalize their product.

CNA spoke with Dr. John Jackson who runs the Turin Shroud Center of Colorado and is a physics lecturer at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Jackson led a team of 30 researchers in 1978 who determined that the shroud was not painted, dyed or stained. He explained to CNA that that based off the Reuters report as well as photos of Garlaschelli’s shroud on the internet, it appeared that it doesn’t exactly match the Shroud of Turin.

Dr. Jackson first questioned the technique used by Garlaschelli’s team, taking issue with the method of adding blood after aging the cloth. Jackson explained that he has conducted “two independent observations that argue that the blood features on the shroud” show “that the blood was on it first, then the body image came second.”

Continued- http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17323

 

[2Cosmic2Charlie]

Please take this topic out of this section. This topic directly calls in to question the Vatican and so should not be in this section.

I can't comment on an object on which the Vatican has not taken a stand as to its authenticity ?

 

[rahmiyn]

I've just spent some time researching articles on the internet (a lot of PDF files!), and what remains the most fascinating aspect of the shroud is the inability for any scientist to outright prove any inauthenticity.

On the blood stains, a man named Adler found it to be blood of AB type. But, other scientists indicate that it couldn't possibly be authentic to Jesus' time, because that blood type did not exist until Asiatic people began migrating west and mingling with Europeans (around 700AD).

The most interesting scrutiny surrounds the dating of the shroud. Evidence points strongly to the section that scientists took and tested was a patched addition to the original shroud, and therefore not the original.

Other studies including the blood markings have qualified specialists indicating the markings reflect actual blood patterns, including clotting and flow, while others equally qualified seem to prove the blood patterns, including clotting and flow, could not have been authentic to one crucified in the manner Christ was.

As someone posted above, the biggest mystery that seems most to authenticate the shroud is the nail marks in the wrist instead of the palm. Even the Catholic church declared it a forgery based only on this, because all medieval art and literature had the nail marks in the palms. The technique used for the crucified method of the shrouded figure was discontinued in the first-century AD. I agree with the poster that this alone is compelling evidence.

What I used to believe was that the "photographic" effect evident in the shroud was caused by the resurrection. I always felt it would explain any hypothesis that the shroud image had been produced by some form of light process.

Again, the most interesting aspect of all the studies that have been done is that none have been able to either definitively prove or disprove its authenticity.

 

[Davidnic]

Please take this topic out of this section. This topic directly calls in to question the Vatican and so should not be in this section.

The Vatican has given no official opinion on this relic except to say that authentic or not it should serve as a powerful reminder of our salvation.

 

[Mom2Alex]

As many have said, if it is real or fake, it will not change my faith whatsoever.

Shroud of Turin Story Guide to the Facts 2008

I am certain there are millions who believe that they can prove that Jesus was not the Messiah and have very convincing evidence to back it up.

Faith is about knowing without seeing.

 

[AMDG]

On the blood stains, a man named Adler found it to be blood of AB type. But, other scientists indicate that it couldn't possibly be authentic to Jesus' time, because that blood type did not exist until Asiatic people began migrating west and mingling with Europeans (around 700AD).

I thought God could do anything. And if it is so about the AB blood type, I find the fact that the blood type is one that is truly representative of what will end up being the world's population fascinating.

 

[NewMan99]

I can't comment on an object on which the Vatican has not taken a stand as to its authenticity ?

I gotta agree with you, Charlie, in that the Vatican has not taken an official stance on it...although I will disagree with you insofar as you seem to have taken a stance that it is certainly a fake. You express more certainty in its fakery than the Vatican takes in its possible authenticity.

Is it a fake? Maybe. Is it authentic? Maybe. On a personal level I would like it to be authentic, although just because I hope it is authentic doesn't make it so.

There are a few things that I find disturbing to a degree about this latest "scientific" analysis.

First of all, whenever someone like this (who was paid for his analysis by a group of atheists, btw...and it is very easy for him to claim that that didn't enter into his thinking - maybe it didn't, but I have to wonder exactly how many scientists from the "other side" of the controversy this group approached...we tend to use scientific experts who already share our presuppositions - and this tendency cuts both ways), comes out with a new "finding" it is all over the mainstream press. Honestly - this was front page stuff on many news outlet websites like CNN, Yahoo News, Fox News, etc... They are practically falling over themselves in their rush to tell the public just how supposedly fake this "relic" is. And yet whenever another scientist issues an analysis that focuses on an aspect of the shroud that remains a mystery...well...insert crickets chirping. Why the trumpets blaring on this particular analysis and the crickets chirping when other scientists pose difficult questions without any explanation? That bugs me. Of course, this is a complaint against the media, and not necessarily against this particular study or this particular scientist. Whether or not he is right has nothing to do with how much publicity it received.

Another problem that troubles me is that it really only addresses one (or a few) of several aspects of the shroud. For example, even if he did reproduce a similar image - does this new image also have the old image's 3D qualities? How does the Shroud of Turin have ancient pollen spores if it is merely a forgery from the Middle Ages? The list of questions goes on and on and on.

Please understand I am not saying that this scientist is wrong or used improper methodology. What I am saying is that his study only addresses one aspect of the topic as a comprehensive whole.

Again it goes back to how it is reported in the media. Did they imply to their readers that a scientist has proven that it is a fake? Yes. The casual reader who knows little about the topic - someone who mainly just reads headlines or doesn't really have good critical thinking skills - will think that it is now proven to be a fake. I guarantee you that there will be many people in my own circle of friends who will tell me this. But the reality is that this study proves nothing except that some modern day scientist was able to reproduce some aspects that compare to images on the original shroud. It doesn't prove that that was how the image was actually imparted to THAT piece of linen. Reproducing an aspect of an "effect" is not the same as determining its actual cause.

So that is what bugs me - not the study - but how it is reported. And its all your fault. LOL. (Just kidding)

 

[kisstheson]

"Another problem that troubles me is that it really only addresses one (or a few) of several aspects of the shroud. For example, even if he did reproduce a similar image - does this new image also have the old image's 3D qualities? How does the Shroud of Turin have ancient pollen spores if it is merely a forgery from the Middle Ages? The list of questions goes on and on and on".
which is what i said to a few atheists on myspace.

Let's not jump to conclusions yet.

 

[chilehed]

In fact all verified Eucharist miracles share the same blood type. This includes all the ones from before anyone knew about blood typing, that would be a really odd coincidence if faked....

I've been told that that's because all blood samples eventually revert to AB. Something about the way the proteins age.

So the fact that all of the ancient samples are AB means nothing.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

I've been told that that's because all blood samples eventually revert to AB. Something about the way the proteins age.

So the fact that all of the ancient samples are AB means nothing.

except that many Eucharistic miracles are incorruptible? (like Lanciano.. ) and have many other unexplained physical properties that aren't found in nature


Lanciano - Eucharistic Miracle

 

[Caedmon]

"Another problem that troubles me is that it really only addresses one (or a few) of several aspects of the shroud. For example, even if he did reproduce a similar image - does this new image also have the old image's 3D qualities? How does the Shroud of Turin have ancient pollen spores if it is merely a forgery from the Middle Ages? The list of questions goes on and on and on".
which is what i said to a few atheists on myspace.

Let's not jump to conclusions yet.

On the contrary, I think those who claim it's real are the ones who may have jumped to a conclusion. The Vatican has not confirmed it was a relic. I think you should have to prove it's real first (which would include Vatican confirmation), not just assume that it's real and force other people to prove otherwise.

 

[NewMan99]

On the contrary, I think those who claim it's real are the ones who may have jumped to a conclusion. The Vatican has not confirmed it was a relic. I think you should have to prove it's real first (which would include Vatican confirmation), not just assume that it's real and force other people to prove otherwise.

And I will submit that this cuts both ways - in other words - the burden rests on those who claim with certainty one way or the other to provide their "proof". I have more respect for the skeptics who let the evidence speak for itself, while admitting that there are still unresolved controversies. I have less respect for those who claim *with dogmatic certainty* that it is a fake merely because a scientist was able to reproduce one aspect of the relic (while ignoring all the other aspects which still have no explanation). And - on the flip side - I have more respect for those who accept with faith ***the possibility*** that it is authentic (since it has not been conclusively proven otherwise) than I do for those who *go beyond what the Church herself says on the matter* and claim with domatic certainty that it is authentic (while ignoring the fact the Church does not say it is authentic and the fact that some scientific evidence suggests that it may not be authentic).

Let's not jump to any conclusions in either direction.

 

[kisstheson]

"than I do for those who *go beyond what the Church herself says on the matter* and claim with domatic certainty that it is authentic (while ignoring the fact the Church does not say it is authentic and the fact that some scientific evidence suggests that it may not be authentic)."

I don't know any shroudie who does this. yes they do go with the strong possibility that it's the shroud of Christ but they are opened to convincing or statisfactory evidence that the shroud could be something else.

 

[kisstheson]

On the contrary, I think those who claim it's real are the ones who may have jumped to a conclusion. The Vatican has not confirmed it was a relic. I think you should have to prove it's real first (which would include Vatican confirmation), not just assume that it's real and force other people to prove otherwise.

On the contrary, shroudies have plenty of reasons for believing the image could be that of Christ's. This doesn't mean they are not opened to others putting on the table their theories. in the same way those with opposing views should be just as opened to considering the possibility that it's Christ's shroud.

 

[Caedmon]

And I will submit that this cuts both ways - in other words - the burden rests on those who claim with certainty one way or the other to provide their "proof". I have more respect for the skeptics who let the evidence speak for itself, while admitting that there are still unresolved controversies. I have less respect for those who claim *with dogmatic certainty* that it is a fake merely because a scientist was able to reproduce one aspect of the relic (while ignoring all the other aspects which still have no explanation). And - on the flip side - I have more respect for those who accept with faith ***the possibility*** that it is authentic (since it has not been conclusively proven otherwise) than I do for those who *go beyond what the Church herself says on the matter* and claim with domatic certainty that it is authentic (while ignoring the fact the Church does not say it is authentic and the fact that some scientific evidence suggests that it may not be authentic).

Let's not jump to any conclusions in either direction.

Well I'll be honest and say I didn't read the entire thread, so I don't necessarily know what people have said for or against it. So if anyone is asserting that partial information equals total refutation, they've jumped the gun.

 

[NewMan99]

Well I'll be honest and say I didn't read the entire thread, so I don't necessarily know what people have said for or against it. So if anyone is asserting that partial information equals total refutation, they've jumped the gun.

Then we are in agreement.

 

[NewMan99]

"than I do for those who *go beyond what the Church herself says on the matter* and claim with domatic certainty that it is authentic (while ignoring the fact the Church does not say it is authentic and the fact that some scientific evidence suggests that it may not be authentic)."

I don't know any shroudie who does this. yes they do go with the strong possibility that it's the shroud of Christ but they are opened to convincing or statisfactory evidence that the shroud could be something else.

I know a few who do this, but overall I agree with you - the vast majority of people with a degree of devotion to the shroud recognize that it is not dogmatically certain and are willing to put their devotion aside if told to by the Church. I include myself in that category.

What I like about the shroud is not whether or not it is authentic, but rather it makes me step back and meditate about the fact that Jesus was a real flesh and blood Person who really was killed and wrapped in a linen. It is what the shroud represents - not the shroud itself. I don't worship an idol or an image - not even something touched by God Himself. At the most it is a "photograph" of Jesus. Nothing more (except the supernatural way in which the "photo" was taken).