Skip to comments.Italian scientist reproduces Shroud of Turin
Posted on 10/05/2009 11:22:44 AM PDT by Gamecock
An Italian scientist says he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin, a feat that he says proves definitively that the linen some Christians revere as Jesus Christ's burial cloth is a medieval fake. The shroud, measuring 14 feet, 4 inches by 3 feet, 7 inches bears the image, eerily reversed like a photographic negative, of a crucified man some believers say is Christ. "We have shown that is possible to reproduce something which has the same characteristics as the Shroud," Luigi Garlaschelli, who is due to illustrate the results at a conference on the para-normal this weekend in northern Italy, said on Monday. A professor of organic chemistry at the University of Pavia, Garlaschelli made available to Reuters the paper he will deliver and the accompanying comparative photographs.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
“Garlaschelli received funding for his work by an Italian association of atheists and agnostics but said it had no effect on his results. “
OK, sure. Whatever you say...
Oh, and you conveniently left out this part:
Garlaschelli received funding for his work by an Italian association of atheists and agnostics but said it had no effect on his results.
"Money has no odor," he said. "This was done scientifically. If the Church wants to fund me in the future, here I am."
If true - using technology of today - 2000 years more advanced that what was available.
“”We have shown that is possible to reproduce something which has the same characteristics as the Shroud,” Luigi Garlaschelli..”
That’s it? That’s the world shattering announcement? “We discovered that something could be faked, therefore that proves that it was faked?” Ummmm, yeah right. I’ll bet this scientist also believes that of event B happened after event A then event A must have cuased event B.
“Money has no odor,”...
But this “study” does...
“If true - using technology of today - 2000 years more advanced that what was available.”
Am I the only one who reads the article:
“Garlaschelli reproduced the full-sized shroud using materials and techniques that were available in the middle ages.”
“They placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A mask was used for the face. The pigment was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it, a process which removed it from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud. He believes the pigment on the original Shroud faded naturally over the centuries.”
Wow! Those early church scientists really knew their stuff!
The carbon date shows this is from late 1200s.
It’s been pretty well debunked as legit.
(And yes, I am a Christian. I just happen to think this artifact is a fake.)
“that is possible to reproduce something which has the same characteristics as the Shroud”
Weasel words. It’s made of cloth rather than rice-paper? Same characteristics?
How many “characteristics” does it have to share with the Shroud before it shows it could have been manufactered long after the fact? Will it need to have the “characteristics” of the pollen from the Jerusalem area that only blooms in the spring?
This is a “village idiot” planted story, so, of course, the media eat it up.
More like late 1200s con-men who rooked honest Churchmen.
Interesting that no pics accompanied the article. I wonder if the new shroud has Obama’s face.
Whatever he may have produced, his willingness to make such a statement defines him as something other than a scientist.
How on earth could it do that?
If I convincingly fake a dollar bill, how does it prove that the one in your pocket is also a fake?
Carbon-date some Shroud threads NOT taken from the 13th century patch and see what the age is. That's science. But pretending that a fake proves that something else is a fake is just lunacy - or rather, it's the dishonest advancement of an atheist agenda.
Also: if the Shroud image is caused by a natural process to do with, I don't know, ammonia, heat, blood, aloes, whatever then reproducing the effect hardly falsifies the Shroud. Rather, it tends to validate it.
“left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud.”
Operative word: “similar.”
How has this “scientist’s” claim been subjected to peer review or independent falsification?
It’s proof of concept that the shroud could have been faked.
I could do the same thing with cloth, lemon juice, and a candle.
I’m unclear how this experiment proved or disproved anything with the Shroud of Turin. Anything that has ever happened in the natural world can, under the right circumstances, happen again in a similar fashion. This is true of the chocolate chip cookies my wife baked yesterday, and it is true of the Shroud of Turin too.
left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud.
Operative word: similar.
A pig is similar to a human if one is comparing both human and pig to a shovel.
A man is similar to a woman if comparing both to a pig.
Two brothers are similar to each other if comparing both to their great-grand-dad.
Similar is such a lovely word.
Wow...do you think you are Jesus??
“Whatever he may have produced, his willingness to make such a statement defines him as something other than a scientist.”
It merely shows that a fake was possible with technology of the time.
Then check out the first line of the story; "An Italian scientist says he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin,.....".
The headline is a bald statement of fact. The story reveals that it is actually a claim made by a man funded by an organization which has a vested interest in a certain experimental outcome.
I believe this is called a "conflict of interest".
There are some that are saying that they tested part of the Shroud where a patch was placed later, therefore skewing the results.
“Wow...do you think you are Jesus??”
No Jesus is the Lord, son of the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.
I am merely a man whose faith does not rely on things as potentially false as this cloth.
Wow, you are completely out of touch with the legitimate doubts raised by the last carbon dating. I suggest you read up on things you are expressing opinions on.
Look again at your statement, “It’s pretty well debunked as legit.” Pretty well debunked? That’s an educated statement?
I recommend that you look up the "Sudarium of Olviedo". This is the facecloth that went with the Shroud. Its provenance is well-attested to at least as far back as the 6th Century and the thorn/blood marks on it match those on the shroud in dozens of places.
CSI Jerusalem would call that a match :0), but there is always the option of checking the carbon date of threads not taken from the 13th century patch.
This creation of a fake reeks of dishonest polemic - and at the same time should inform you that the carbon dating evidence is not settled.
“There are some that are saying that they tested part of the Shroud where a patch was placed later, therefore skewing the results.”
I saw that on this thread. That’s news to me.
Lots of peoples’ faith is very weak to be worried about whether this cloth is real or not.
“A mask was used for the face.”
I see. So they “reproduced” the Shroud but just left out a little detail.
The Face. One of the most significant things about the Shroud is the way the image reproduces a human body with “3-D” modeling. A cloth draped over a pigment-covered cadaver won’t produce a properly 3-D set of highlights and valleys. The face is one of the crucial areas for assessing this modeling.
They just left it out. To keep the paint and acid out of the volunteer’s eyes? The scientists are compassionate folks. I suppose they’d not have gotten many volunteers if they had asked for someone to volunteer to be crucified.
Who said that their faith depends on this cloth?
What you don’t seem to understand is that you can have perfect belief that Christ was resurrected, and also believe that evidence of it was left behind. There is no problem here for the Believer.
Whatever the answer to that question, there is no reason not to examine the truth/falsehood of the Shroud. The truth cannot lead us away from Christ.
They could read it a thousand times. If they don’t wish to see it, they won’t.
BTW they won’t see your reply, either.
The Shroudies will correct this soon, methinks, but it's not been debunked. The C14-tested patch was conclusively demonstrated recently to contain medieval "repair" fibers rewoven into the original cloth. A new C-14 analysis has to be done that does not contain these "repair" fibers.
Also, there are some historical references that may well refer to the Shroud that predate the late Middle Ages C-14 estimate. One is the depiction in the Hungarian Pray manuscript which even reproduces the odd l-shaped burn holes in the cloth. What the Shroud may be is the Holy Mandylion of Edessa, which, in some references, is called a full-length body portrait "folded in four" as opposed to just a facial icon. Ian Wilson has done some fascinating studies historically...it would be worth checking out if you are interested in the topic.
Anyway, as you intimated, Christianity doesn't stand or fall on this particular artifact, but it is an interesting study for sure.
HURRAY!!! YOU’RE HERE!!! Autumn brings you back to us! We MISSED you! All good wishes to you and Lady Gamecock and the kidlings.
That's the wrong conclusion.
The carbon dating was off...but I have forgot were I read it so I offer my opinion as my 2 cents!!!
Calling Dan Rather! Calling Dan Rather!
A person's attachment to reality is very weak if they accept anything the media says about the Shroud without checking.
“Its been pretty well debunked as legit.”
Sorry, you have not read the evidence. The C-14 dating has been pretty thoroughly debunked—and by people with no dog in this fight.
You need to do a “bit” of reading before you pontificate. I don’t know of any historical artifact so thoroughly examined forensically with the resulting evidence pointing nearly without exception toward authenticity. I write as a professional historian. If this were any other historical artifact, its authenticity would have been universally acknowledged decades ago. I see the bed Lincoln died in displayed in the Chicago Historical Museum and no one asks, “how do I know that’s authentic.” Thousands of historical artifacts are displayed around the world with 1/100th of the authenticating evidence that has arisen out of thousands of hours of scientific examination of the Shroud.
Yet people grasp at any straw, no matter how village-atheist produced, to discredit it. We would not be having this debate if it were a comparably researched relic of George Washington or Napoleon.
Seems to me that your faith is somehow bothered by the potential that this cloth is what it purports to be....
And I can see no reason for that.
Only a skeptic would turn off his/her brain and accept this as evidence that the shroud is a fake. I don’t care one way or the other if its not genuine.
All they have done is show that it is reproducable. Just because the Mona-Lisa is reproducable doesn’t mean the original is a fake.
I swear ... you have to believe some real crazy stuff to be a non-believer.
“The Shroud of Turin is a fake. It has been demonstrated repeatedly both in dating and in the science required to make it.”
You are so wrong. You should do some more critical reading.
The shroud is not an idol, and it is not worshipped.
No, and no one who claims the Shroud is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus says what you say. Shucks, half the scientists working on the scientific research on the Shroud are not even believers.
Christian faith does not depend on relics, but it does depend on the reality of a historical event (or chain of events).
But just as you cherish your great-grandmother’s china or your grandfather’s war medals, all humans everywhere through all time have cherished tangible objects that connect them to cherished persons of the past.
Is that so hard to fathom?
Read the thread before you make such a claim.
Surely he was aware of this?
For your further research convenience: http://tinyurl.com/turinlinen.