Posted on 08/11/2008 9:01:59 AM PDT by Soliton
Introduction: An Exercise in Pseudoscience Ray Rogers, a retired chemist who formerly worked at the Los Alamos national laboratory, recently published a pro-authenticity Shroud of Turin paper in a legitimate and peer-reviewed chemistry journal, Thermochimica Acta (hereafter TA). The Rogers paper makes two claims: First, the piece of the Shroud linen that was age-dated using radiocarbon technology in 1988 was actually a much-younger patch of cloth that allowed the radiocarbon labs to reach an incorrect medieval date. Second, using his own age-dating method, Rogers claims that the Shroud is actually much older than the early 14th century radiocarbon date. This paper has created a minor media frenzy, since it is the first pro-authenticity Shroud paper published in a legitimate scientific journal in about two decades. For this reason, and quite understandably, observers perceive that Rogers' paper must be exceptionally reliable. Unfortunately, these observers would be wrong. This response examines the scientific issues and elucidates the reasons why the Rogers paper fails in its claims in every instance.
(Excerpt) Read more at freeinquiry.com ...
It’s interesting how the image is a negative long before photography was ever invented. If it’s a fake, why would the artist paint a negative??
God has an opinion on the Shroud of Turin? I've never heard of this before.
It’s not a negative
It has been demonstrated NOT to be a negative
Ping for an answer to Rogers’ bogus claims.
The Shroud of Turin is, after all, a notorious religious relic of the Catholic Church, and thus should be regarded with the same skepticism and contempt as other such relics.
While I personally don't follow the Catholic religion nor any organized religion for that matter, this is all the proof we need that he is a rabid athiest and therefore should not be trusted with theological pursuits of truth.
This dude needs to put his money where his mouth is...recreate the Shroud as he says is possible or admit he has no real proof. His wimpy answer that it is not worth his time is a cop-out.
It's been done. The important part of the article is that the STURP dudes won't let anyone test their claims. That won't give access to the remaining samples
He clearly states it was not done correctly...even according to his standards...therefore it is not a true recreation, so you are wrong. And if I was with the STURP, I don’t think I would turn over part of a sacred religious artifact to a confirmed atheist either. Not only does each part you remove defile and devalue it, what is the point, they have not proven anything conclusive so far with what they were already given. I’m sure it would give them great pleasure to destroy it piece by piece.
When, where, how and by whom?
Drawing on a method previously used by skeptics to attack authenticity claims about the Shroud, Science & Vie got an artist to do a bas-relief — a sculpture that stands out from the surrounding background — of a Christ-like face.
A scientist then laid out a damp linen sheet over the bas-relief and let it dry, so that the thin cloth was moulded onto the face. Using cotton wool, he then carefully dabbed ferric oxide, mixed with gelatine, onto the cloth to make blood-like marks. When the cloth was turned inside-out, the reversed marks resulted in the famous image of the crucified Christ.
Gelatine, an animal by-product rich in collagen, was frequently used by Middle Age painters as a fixative to bind pigments to canvas or wood.
The imprinted image turned out to be wash-resistant, impervious to temperatures of 250 C (482 F) and was undamaged by exposure to a range of harsh chemicals, including bisulphite which, without the help of the gelatine, would normally have degraded ferric oxide to the compound ferrous oxide.
The experiments, said Science & Vie, answer several claims made by the pro-Shroud camp, which says the marks could not have been painted onto the cloth.
For one thing, the Shroud’s defenders argue, photographic negatives and scanners show that the image could only have derived from a three-dimensional object, given the width of the face, the prominent cheekbones and nose.
In addition, they say, there are no signs of any brushmarks. And, they argue, no pigments could have endured centuries of exposure to heat, light and smoke.
For Jacques di Costanzo, of Marseille University Hospital, southern France, who carried out the experiments, the mediaeval forger must have also used a bas-relief, a sculpture or cadaver to get the 3-D imprint.
The faker used a cloth rather than a brush to make the marks, and used gelatine to keep the rusty blood-like images permanently fixed and bright for selling in the booming market for religious relics.
To test his hypothesis, di Costanzo used ferric oxide, but no gelatine, to make other imprints, but the marks all disappeared when the cloth was washed or exposed to the test chemicals.
He also daubed the bas-relief with an ammoniac compound designed to represent human sweat and also with cream of aloe, a plant that was used as an embalming aid by Jews at the time of Christ.
He then placed the cloth over it for 36 hours — the approximate time that Christ was buried before rising again — but this time, there was not a single mark on it.
“It’s obviously easier to make a fake shroud than a real one,” Science & Vie report drily.
As to all of Porter's chemical complaints: I was not trying to prove that the Shroud of Turin was faked using this method (though I believe it to have been). I don't yet have the data to make that sort of claim (if I ever will). I set out to prove something with a relatively narrow hypothesis, and I proved it.A medieval could quite simply create a three-dimensional photo negative on linen (even superficially) like the image on the Turin Shroud, without using paints, chemicals, or dyes. Whether the chemical attributes of a cloth exposed this way matches the chemical properties of the Shroud, remains to be seen.Therefore he did not "recreate" the shroud. In addition, he also started with an idealogical bias and that overshadows any results he derived from the experiment. That is just shoddy science. And his answer to #5 about why there are not more cloths from that period like this is hilarious.
As for Jacques di Costanzo, he is not considered to be an expert in this field by those who are and his experiment is also an unproven theory and not a true recreation of the Shroud. Got any other gooey crap you want to try to stick to the wall?
False.
There goes his credibility. If you delete the part in bold, it's a pretty reasonable statement.
But when he insists on contempt, he shows his hand.
He leaves us this Shroud, and he made the platypus.
Both are mysteries.
Yes, and he gives us posters who post 3 year old articles. I’m sure it has been debated on FR before.
While even I have contempt for some Catholic teachings (as you know from our previous contentuous debates) we do agree on that fact. And while they claim they have "recreated the Shroud", careful reading shows they have done nothing of the kind.
The rest of us don't.
And I saw demonstrations that it was a negative ....
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.