Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientist re-creates Turin Shroud to show it's fake
cnn.com ^ | 3:41 p.m. EDT, Wed October 7, 2009 | Richard Allen Greene

Posted on 10/08/2009 10:14:43 AM PDT by Nikas777

Scientist re-creates Turin Shroud to show it's fake

updated 3:41 p.m. EDT, Wed October 7, 2009

By Richard Allen Greene CNN

(CNN) -- An Italian scientist says he has reproduced one of the world's most famous Catholic relics, the Shroud of Turin, to support his belief it is a medieval fake, not the cloth Jesus was buried in.

Luigi Garlaschelli created a copy of the shroud by wrapping a specially woven cloth over one of his students, painting it with pigment, baking it in an oven (which he called a "shroud machine") for several hours, then washing it.

His result looks like the cloth that many Christians through the centuries have believed is the actual burial shroud of Jesus, he told CNN.

"What you have now is a very fuzzy, dusty and weak image," he said. "Then for the sake of completeness I have added the bloodstains, the burns, the scorching because there was a fire in 1532."

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Arts/Photography; History; Religion; Weird Stuff
KEYWORDS: godsgravesglyphs; medievalfake; medievalforgery; medievalfraud; shroudofturin
The Shroud maybe a copy of an actual relic - the Mandylion that the Greeks would re-create and sell to Latin Crusaders. There was a brisk trade in relic copies - not forgery - but copies - of actual relics in that era. People forget that there are many Shrouds out there - though this one is most authentic looking and the others look man made. They were sold as reproductions but were venerated as relics regardless. Over time they became a substitute for the actual relic itself as time went on and people forgot the origins (or lied about it to sell as the item).

If the Shroud is a man made image it is of high quality work and a technology that was not found in the West. I think exposure to light through painted glass is how it was done - and the Byzantines had the craftsmen and technology for such a thing.

1 posted on 10/08/2009 10:14:43 AM PDT by Nikas777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Nikas777
That's great. Now perhaps we can talk about the faking of Global Warming® data. No? Can't question that religion? The "science is settled"?
2 posted on 10/08/2009 10:18:51 AM PDT by randog (Tap into America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nikas777

This phony application of “science” has already been ruled out:

http://www.shroud.com/latebrak.htm


3 posted on 10/08/2009 10:22:35 AM PDT by Kandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kandy

Aside from the fact that this person has NOT duplicated the properties of the image on the Shroud, the claims being made are not logically valid.

By this logic, if and when human being succeed in creating life, that will PROVE that there is a God.


4 posted on 10/08/2009 10:34:15 AM PDT by john in springfield (One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe such things.No ordinary man could be such a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Nikas777

Interesting that he “baked” it since I believe it was involved in a fire at one time.


5 posted on 10/08/2009 10:34:29 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nikas777

There’s a logical fallacy here - to create an image resembling that on the Shroud of Turin using technology available in medieval times does not prove that the Shroud is not the shroud of Jesus.

It only shows that the Shroud COULD be a medieval creation, IF the new image duplicates the Shroud in sufficiently many signficant aspects. There has not been enough evidence presented or independent review to determine that.

If they do demonstrate the possibility of a medieval creation, then they have increased the probability that a rational mind will assign to that, at the expense of the probability that it is the shroud of Jesus, without disproving the latter.


6 posted on 10/08/2009 10:54:41 AM PDT by heartwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nikas777

ha ha “shroud machine” he so funny


7 posted on 10/08/2009 10:54:43 AM PDT by jtal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nikas777

The more people try to disprove the Shroud, the more real it looks.

This guys attempt looks to be laughable in light of the science performed on the Shroud over the years.


8 posted on 10/08/2009 10:56:26 AM PDT by Adder (Proudly ignoring Zero since 1-20-09!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nikas777

How did these re-creators get the 1st century pollen embedded in it? I have read a lot about the scientific examination of the shroud of Turin and this has to be the weakest debunking I have ever heard. But then again, it’s CNN.


9 posted on 10/08/2009 10:57:18 AM PDT by La Lydia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nikas777

It’s already been determined that the Shroud is not a painted image. And the fact that it’s a photographic negative would appear to rule out delliberate forgery, since nobody in the Middle Ages knew anything about photography.

Other than that, great job.


10 posted on 10/08/2009 10:59:23 AM PDT by Argus (We've gone downtown to Clown Town, and that's where we'll be living from now on..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nikas777

btt


11 posted on 10/08/2009 10:59:38 AM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nikas777

Or this guy is on a fool’s errand. Because A can do B does not provide proof of anything. Note well that he used an oven ( of which he gives us no details for temp and time —— a critical thing for evaluating if some previous person could have faked this). He has not put it through the testing that has produced very interesting results ( including 3-d imaging, pollen studies, etc).

All hes has done is put an image on cloth. Proves NADA


12 posted on 10/08/2009 11:08:31 AM PDT by the long march
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nikas777

I don’t anywhere in the article where this new image is a photographic negative. No matter what his pigmented image looks like if it’s not a negative he hasn’t shown us anything.


13 posted on 10/08/2009 11:09:11 AM PDT by pgkdan ( I miss Ronald Reagan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kandy

Exactly


14 posted on 10/08/2009 11:09:39 AM PDT by the long march
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Nikas777

In the end few people will be persuaded or dissuaded.


15 posted on 10/08/2009 11:20:31 AM PDT by ontap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Argus

Not a photographic negative. But a sun etching through sun bleaching. You need a pane of glass the whole length of the body and an outline painted to prevent the sun bleaching in some areas and the sun from impacting in other areas. The expensive part is the length of pane glass that is the length of the body.


16 posted on 10/08/2009 11:29:45 AM PDT by Nikas777 (En touto nika, "In this, be victorious")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Nikas777
Why would a 13th century forger of relics go to the time and trouble to make a shroud that challenges 21st century technologies when a crude painted fake would have sufficed? I am particularly intrigued by the unique anatomic features of the image on the Turin Shroud. Again these details would have been unknown in the 13th century and would have been contrary to popular images of the Crucifixion at the time.
17 posted on 10/08/2009 11:30:24 AM PDT by The Great RJ ("The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ
The why is for the money and the image was not painted onto cloth but rather sun bleached?
18 posted on 10/08/2009 11:37:44 AM PDT by Nikas777 (En touto nika, "In this, be victorious")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Nikas777

Front and back on the same piece of cloth? How does that happen?


19 posted on 10/08/2009 11:54:16 AM PDT by Argus (We've gone downtown to Clown Town, and that's where we'll be living from now on..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Argus

From my posting:
‘Teacher Has Theory on the Shroud of Turin’ @ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2357726/posts

As the Shroud is roughly fourteen feet in length, two pieces of glass would be necessary, both at least six feet long. The image of the front of the man would be produced beneath one and the back of the man beneath the other.

When Dr. Antonio Lombatti, Fellow Researcher in Medieval Church History at the Deputazione di Storia Patria in Parma, Italy was recently asked about the availability of glass large enough to produce the Shroud, he responded, “Of course a medieval artist could have enough glass to produce that relic.” He pointed out that six foot painted glass windows were not uncommon, and also mentioned that the length discrepancy between the front and back images of the man in the Shroud (1-2 inches) suggests two different phases of production.


20 posted on 10/08/2009 11:57:22 AM PDT by Nikas777 (En touto nika, "In this, be victorious")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Nikas777
Boy, you're posting as much as you can on this.

Trolling for publicity, or is this guy your brother in law /sarc>?

Cheers!

21 posted on 10/08/2009 12:14:09 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

I find these subjects fascinating. I really have no dog in any fight and don’t wan’t to have this as a fight but as a discussion. I also know your kidding around so no worries.


22 posted on 10/08/2009 12:22:19 PM PDT by Nikas777 (En touto nika, "In this, be victorious")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·

 
Gods
Graves
Glyphs
Thanks Nikas777.

Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
 

·Dogpile · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society ·
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google ·
· The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·


23 posted on 10/08/2009 3:29:58 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/__Since Jan 3, 2004__Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nikas777

I’m more amused by the desperate actions of the anti-God folk to PROVE that God doesn’t exist.

If He doesn’t exist, why are they making such a big deal about it? Why can’t they just STFU and leave we believers alone?

Self doubt and insecurity, perhaps?


24 posted on 10/09/2009 9:52:07 PM PDT by Don W (I will praise Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don W
I’m more amused by the desperate actions of the anti-God folk to PROVE that God doesn’t exist.

You get that from the Shroud of Turin controversy?

25 posted on 10/12/2009 6:13:37 AM PDT by Nikas777 (En touto nika, "In this, be victorious")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Nikas777

Whether the Shroud is real or not is (or should be) irrelevant to both the faithful and the secular. What is of import here is the incessant attempt by the secular/anti-God forces to denigrate and deny everything that has to do with the Christian faith.

It’s the constant chipping away at the basic foundations of our society and our faith that I got out of this, and hundreds of articles regarding various relics and icons of primarily Catholic possession.

In a way, I see the secular West doing the exact same thing to the Christian faith as the “palestinians” are doing to Jewish artifacts in the areas of the Holy Land controlled by the muslims.


26 posted on 10/12/2009 6:43:44 AM PDT by Don W (I will praise Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Don W

I don’t see how this argument is linked to the Shroud. For example God fearing Protestants do not believe (or should not) in relics and the shroud as a relic would be meaningless to them and the Shroud being debunked would have zero affect on them since they don’t accept such things as the Shroud as objects of veneration in the first place.


27 posted on 10/12/2009 6:49:15 AM PDT by Nikas777 (En touto nika, "In this, be victorious")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson