Posted on 06/22/2005 11:26:38 PM PDT by Swordmaker
Paris - A French magazine said on Tuesday it had carried out experiments that proved the Shroud of Turin, believed by some Christians to be their religion's holiest relic, was a fake.
"A mediaeval technique helped us to make a Shroud," Science & Vie (Science and Life) said in its July issue.
The Shroud is claimed by its defenders to be the cloth in which the body of Jesus Christ was wrapped after his crucifixion.
It bears the faint image of a blood-covered man with holes in his hand and wounds in his body and head, the apparent result of being crucified, stabbed by a Roman spear and forced to wear a crown of thorns.
In 1988, scientists carried out carbon-14 dating of the delicate linen cloth and concluded that the material was made some time between 1260 and 1390. Their study prompted the then archbishop of Turin, where the Shroud is stored, to admit that the garment was a hoax. But the debate sharply revived in January this year.
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.
Fixative
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 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 medieval forger must have also used a bas-relief, a sculpture or cadaver to get the 3-D imprint.
Booming market
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.
The first documented evidence of the Shroud dates back to 1357, when it surfaced at a church at Lirey, near the eastern French town of Troyes. In 1390, Pope Clement VII declared that it was not the true shroud but could be used as a representation of it, provided the faithful be told that it was not genuine.
In January this year, a US chemist, Raymond Rogers, said the radiocarbon samples for the 1988 study were taken from a piece that had been sewn into the fabric by nuns who repaired the Shroud after it was damaged in a church blaze in 1532.
Rogers said that his analysis of other samples, based on levels of a chemical called vanillin that results from the decomposition of flax and other plants, showed the Shroud could be "between 1 300 and 3 000 years old."
This is a more complete report on the contents and claims made by Science & VIe Magazine about the Shroud being a fake. There are many statements of what the "Shroud Camp" claims that are merely straw arguments set up so they can knock them down... but no one I know in the "Shroud Camp" has made these particular claims.
If you want on or off the Shroud of Turin Ping List, Freepmail me.
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.What has been "answered" here?
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.
Only obviously true claims or false assertions of the positions of Shroud researchers who have far more scientific expertise than do the people who conducted these "experiments."
There ARE no brush strokes on the Shroud; this is a fact... ... just as there are no pigments... including "ferric oxide" (Fe2O3 or Red Rust) in sufficient quanities or concentrations to be visible..
I know of NO Shroud researcher who have argued that "no pigments could have endured... etc."... that is patently absurd because we have other non-shroud artifacts of simlar ages WITH pigments that have survived even longer.
Ahhh, the French. Still trying to deny that anyone saved them (whether from the Germans, or from their own sin, apparently).
It's misguided to base one's faith on any material items.
It's fake
No it's real
It's fake
No it's real
It's fake
No it's real
It's fake
No it's real
It's fake
No it's real
It's fake
No it's real
It's fake
No it's real
It's fake
No it's real
It's fake
No it's real
SCREW THE FROGS!!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1329551/posts?page=47#47http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1329551/posts?page=178#178
Just for the record:
I intend to be wrapped in a burial shroud, and should it one day be found with an outline of my crucified form somehow impressed upon it, I want future scientists to know the following:
1.I will not allow it to fall into the hands of the Catholic Church, the Lion's Club, the ACLU, Democratic party or any other organization which may put it to nefarious use.
2. No pigments of any kind (unless Speed Stick conatins any) will be used upon my shroud.
3. I will helpfully pin a note to the shroud indicating my name, address, social security number, date and time of my expiration and a photograph taken at the time of death so that I may be easily identified. This should obviate the need to take my shroud apart and conduct scientific experiments upon it.
4. I will DEFINITELY not be buried anywhere in France, and I will do my level best to avoid flammable castles in Poland.
5. I will have my shroud thoroughly washed before it is placed upon my corpse so as to leave a clear record of local plant life and pollen.
6. My shroud will not be kept within a wooden chest, but within a concrete slab, with rebar.
7. Strict instructions will be left for my future progeny to keep an accurate diary of where my shroud has been at all times.
8. I will refrain from obtaining a shroud with a Nike swoop, sports team logo, or other commercial advertisement upon it.
9. I promise that my shroud will not have any cute messages such as "I'm with Stupid" upon it.
10. I can almost guarentee that those unidentifiable stains will most likely be my BBQ sauce and Budweiser, placed there just before I was lowered into the concrete. My brother is a bit of a slob.
Well that's it then, the French have solved the puzzle. Burn the thing. /s>
Damn, I forgot a few other things:
11. My shroud will be made of material selected from the Martha Stewart catalog.
12. Most likely, you will finad an imprint that says "Fruit of the Loom", along with pictures of various fruits, and "Size 36". These will probably be written backwards on the shroud.
13. I will take the precaution of erecting a 300' steel tower over my grave so that you can more easily identify it.
14. Should someone mysteriously decide that my shroud should be worshipped as a religious icon, have that person shot before he reproduces.
and finally...
15. Feel free to use my shroud as a really cool table cloth and conversation piece at your next dinner party.
Check with Robert Byrd. I do believe he could have a use for it.
Is this part of the article a fact?
This just in: France Is a Hoax
In a way... but overstated as are many of the article's other assertions.
Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero did not state the Shroud was a "Hoax", he stated, in light of the C14 tests, the Shroud "probably was a Hoax."
In light of the now proven fact that the C14 samples were a mixture of original Shroud and 16th Century patch material, the C14 tests are completely invalid.
The only problem here is that the image wasn't made with ferric oxide or any other substance.
The Quotation, "The Shroud is probably a Hoax!", attributed to the Cardinal is an erroneous summation used in headlines and does not actually reflect what the Cardinal said at the announcement. Here is the Cardinal's statement:
On 13 October 1988, presenting the results of the radio carbon 14 dating test, Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero said: "In handing over the evaluation of these results to science the Church reiterates its respect and veneration for this revered icon of Christ which remains an object of devotion for believers. This is in accordance with the attitude always expressed about the Holy Shroud in which the value of the image prevails over any value it may have as a historical object. It is an attitude that brings down the gratuitous inferences of theological nature put forward in the context of a study that has always been strictly and only scientific."On other occasions the Cardinal, then Custodian of the Holy Shroud, reiterated that the Church "has not accepted the results with its eyes closed. The Church has believed it right - also to free itself from any accusation of fear and unfairness - to give science the opportunity to speak. Science has spoken, now science will judge the results. Nobody has made me say that I accept these results."
While I agree with the "Ferric Oxide" and the "wasn't made" portions of your statement, we now know that the image is composed of a substance... 100-400 nanometers (1/100th the thickness of a human hair) thick... only on the surface fibers of the threads where image exists. It is not paint or any other form of added pigment, though. The substances are starch and polysaccharides similar to caramel formed from a possible Maillard Reaction between the starches left on the linen from the fullering process and fumes, putrecine and cadaverine, outgasing from a dead body.
It's a fake.....but I have in my possesion the bill from the last supper.
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.