Skip to comments.Is the Turin Shroud genuine after all? From beyond the grave, a startling new claim
Posted on 04/10/2009 4:05:37 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
To believers it is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, miraculously marked with his image.
But the Turin shroud was widely dismissed as a hoax in 1988 when scientific tests found it could not be more than 1,000 years old.
Now one of the scientists who first studied 12 foot-long sheet has spoken - from beyond the grave - of how he came to believe that it could be genuine.
A video made shortly before Raymond Rogers died in 2005 has been discovered, in which the U.S. chemist reveals his own tests show the relic to be much older - dating back to between 1,300 and 3,000 years ago.
Dr Rogers said: 'I don't believe in miracles that defy the laws of nature. After the 1988 investigation I'd given up on the shroud.
'But now I am coming to the conclusion that it has a very good chance of being the piece of cloth that was used to bury the historic Jesus.'
He was on the 1978 team that carried out the first in-depth scientific study of the shroud, which examined its underside for the first time in 400 years. After the 1988 carbon dating Dr Rogers was adamant that the robe was nothing more than a medieval hoax.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
from the article:
The cloth is kept in the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin and will be next publicly displayed in 2010.
Dr Rogers’s video will be broadcast tomorrow in The Turin Shroud: New Evidence at 8pm on the Discovery Channel.
That can't be explained (or duplicated) by modern technology!
Forget about the image. Date the fabric. If it was from linen grown, spun and woven in 14th Cent Europe, it can't be authentic. All this takes is someone who understands textiles. And don't take your sample from the repaired patched area! Get a woman who can spin, weave and have her take a sample and give it to the scientists who can place the date of production. Linen is from the flax plant.
If the fabric is 2000 years old, you've got your relic and the source is supernatural. To have fabric that old, saved so carefully, with a mysterious graphic...?
You can't fool us George Bush, with your fancy pontificatizing :)
You have to read the linked original article. That's exactly what Dr. Rogers said and did.
this is very, very interesting
Carbon dating is an iffy science. If you have an absolutely pure sample there’s still a certain margin of error, and all it would take is for the shroud to have gotten moldy or mildewed at any point in time, and the carbon test could be skewed by centuries.
Back in high school my brother’s friend took a piece of his recently-deceased dog and had it carbon dated. According to the report, the dog died 700-800 years ago. Its not as precise a measurement as most people think.
No fancy pontiferousness, strategeric or elsewise. “Ostracization” is actually a word, and was used correctly.
Reweaving has placed material from the medieval period into the original cloth. The sample for carbon dating was from the reweaving portion. Also, fires have deposited ‘carbon’ onto the entire cloth which must be screened for.
Good thing you are here to think up such simple theories that no one has thought of before.
I can’t go into it all but my suggestion is do some research and your questions will be answered.
It was discovered that the fabric samples they tested previously were taken from an area of the shroud that had been repaired during the Medieval period. The fabric they tested has a different consistency and weave...totally different from the rest of the shroud.
Twelve feet of beautifully preserved linen fabric is fascinating enough. People don't understand just how valuable fabric used to be, just a century ago. A yard of any fabric, wool in the age before machines was a staggering investment in labor and materials. When you read old wills, textiles were always mentioned as "heirlooms". Looms, weaving.
Linen is harvested by hand, pulling it up by the roots to make the fiber as long as possible. Then it must be rotted ("retted") to clean off the outer layer of fiber. Then it must be hackled, which means struck until it's soft, then combed. Finally, it's spun. The spinning wheel is a relatively modern invention, spinning in pre-medieval times was with a spindle that would look to someone like a top.
Now, to weaving--wide warps were rarer, more expensive, harder to manage. The wider the piece of fabric, the more likely it is to be either modern or a very valuable antique indeed. I've read that this length of fabric is wide (from selvedge edge to edge), and is pieced of wide sections. You need an expert to take a close look at those selvedges. Forget about the picture and claims of faith. It's right under your nose!
Remember Jesus' robe that was gambled? It had no seam, says the bible. If you know weaving, you know that it is possible to weave a garment with no seam. It is a huge undertaking, a lot of trouble. It involves having mulitiple layers of warp threads and carefully weaving "tube" shapes into the fabric.
The reason this was mentioned is that a seamless garment would be an item of high prestige, suitable for royalty.
The Bible has a lot to say about textiles, their meaning and just how much work was involved in creating a twelve-yard sheet of linen.
This is why I keep thinking it is a hoax. Surely they can't miss something so obvious. Then I read they've taken samples from the patched areas!! Well, a patch is something that could have been added on at any time. Patching was an art form, talented menders can conceal their repairs. Take samples from the selvedges.
There are more people on this earth that would love to disprove” this artifact than to prove it. Although I don’t question your expertise, your rationalizations are ridiculous.
But the Shroud interests me enough to follow the story.
I agree to an extent, but God (I believe) provides us with many evidences of his existence and “aides” to our faith but nothing so concrete as to make are belief irrefutable lest it is no longer be faith but fact.
I see what your argument is, but this has to be a VERY old hoax.....
.....AND the image is not ordinary.
I have a hard time believing it is a hoax because the image was not painted.
How on earth would a person create a hoax without painting the image using the technology of the day?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.