Announcement

Collapse

Archeology 201 Guidelines

If Indiana Jones happened to be a member of Tweb, this is where he'd hang out.

Welcome to the Archeology forum. Were you out doing some gardening and dug up a relic from the distant past? would you like to know more about Ancient Egypt? Did you think Memphis was actually a city in Tennessee?

Well, for the answers to those and other burning questions you've found the right digs.

Our forum rules apply here too, if you haven't read them now is the time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Here is short proof the Shroud of Turin is a fake.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    First you have no knowledge that I know of what the chain of custody was handled. As far as I am concerned as I followed the original story the samples were requested and taken and handled between two scientists. Are you privy to knowledge that the samples were not properly handled that is not public knowledge.
    I did not say that - I said the chain of evidence was in question, not that it was proven corrupt. In question is sufficient - McCrone wasn't one of the actual researchers and didn't examine all the samples. The contamination was a known factor BEFORE the exam - which means McCrone didn't do his homework, as previously stated.



    Originally posted by Shuny
    As in other types of thes materials blood was used with pigments as found in the shroud.
    Not human blood, no it wasn't. Heck, I don't know of any citations of animal blood used in pigmentation (blood stains, it won't paint well) or of animal DNA found in the blood stains. A medieval forger - or a 1st Century forger - would be incredibly unlikely to use human blood. The law frowns on most ways of obtaining it and why bother when the slaughter house is just down the street?


    Originally posted by shuny
    Where please site.
    Already done - here you go again:

    Debunking the article you cited: http://shroud.com/bar.htm#shanks

    And you can just find it yourself because there are too many papers on too many topics to cite here so pick a paper: http://shroud.com/papers.htm

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Two problems with them - first is that the chain of evidence is questionable - if they were subsequently contaminated there would be no way to know.
    First you have no knowledge that I know of what the chain of custody was handled. As far as I am concerned as I followed the original story the samples were requested and taken and handled between two scientists. Are you privy to knowledge that the samples were not properly handled that is not public knowledge.

    But the bigger issue is that McCrone didn't do his homework - OF COURSE there's some residue of paint on the shroud - for centuries copies were made to be displayed elsewhere and they were touched to the original in a sort of sanctification (they weren't fakes but reproductions for display purposes). Those were indeed painted and transfer is inevitable. The DNA in the bloodstains, ye who didn't read the link, proves there are indeed blood stains on the shroud - a LOT of them, actually.
    As in other types of thes materials blood was used with pigments as found in the shroud.

    McCrone is the chief skeptic. He has also been thoroughly refuted.
    Where please site.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-11-2014, 05:37 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Country Sparrow
    replied
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    Here is short proof the Shroud of Turin is a fake.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9ho-T3SQuw
    A laptop, a Barbie, and two joined paper towels drawn on with a sharpie.

    Yep, thar be proof alright. ( I stopped watching when this guy folded the paper towel over the Barbie face to make his point.)
    As a point of actual history, the cloth that would have covered Jesus face was called an the Shroud of Oviedo


    And now this: If you have 88 minutes it is well worth your time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Two problems with them - first is that the chain of evidence is questionable - if they were subsequently contaminated there would be no way to know.

    But the bigger issue is that McCrone didn't do his homework - OF COURSE there's some residue of paint on the shroud - for centuries copies were made to be displayed elsewhere and they were touched to the original in a sort of sanctification (they weren't fakes but reproductions for display purposes). Those were indeed painted and transfer is inevitable. The DNA in the bloodstains, ye who didn't read the link, proves there are indeed blood stains on the shroud - a LOT of them, actually.

    McCrone is the chief skeptic. He has also been thoroughly refuted.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Yeah, slight problem - McCrone wasn't on any of the teams that examined the shroud. He obtained the fiber tapes second hand. http://shroud.com/pdfs/kearse.pdf
    How does that make the fiber tapes invalid?

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Yeah, slight problem - McCrone wasn't on any of the teams that examined the shroud. He obtained the fiber tapes second hand. http://shroud.com/pdfs/kearse.pdf


    Originally posted by Deconstructing the "Debunking" of the Shroud
    Afterword
    Dr. Walter McCrone: "I used standard forensic tests to check for blood. I found none. There is no blood on the shroud." With regard to Dr. Walter McCrone's sidebar, it must be noted that Dr. Victor Tryon, also of the University of Texas-San Antonio, whose expertise is DNA research, has found that the substance called red paint by McCrone contains human DNA, i.e., it is blood. Others have insisted with equal certainty that the shroud image is a Medieval "proto-photo" or a rubbing or a real Medieval crucified body. If the research of those who wish to debunk the TS is accepted, its conclusion must be that the TS is a painting and a photo and a rubbing and a human body transfer.


    http://shroud.com/bar.htm#scavone

    And:
    http://shroud.com/bar.htm#letters



    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    The Shroud Painting Explained

    (Sidebar to Vikan Article)
    by
    Source: http://www.shroud.com/bar.htm#article



    Walter C. McCrone
    Reprinted from Biblical Archaeology Review, November/December 1998
    Volume 24 Number 26 - Copyright 1998 - All Rights Reserved
    Reprinted by permission


    Nearly 20 years ago the Catholic Church invited me to determine chemically what the image is on the Shroud of Turin.

    I obtained 32 samples from the shroud: 18 from areas where there are images both of a body and of bloodstains) and 14 from non-image areas (some from clear areas that served as controls, others from scorch and water stains caused by a fire in 1532). The samples were taken with squares of sticky tape, each of which exceeded a square inch in area and held more than 1,000 linen fibers and any materials attached to the shroud. They were excellent samples. I used standard forensic tests to check for blood. I found none. There is no blood on the shroud.

    To determine what substances are present in the shroud images, I conducted tests based on polarized light microscopy. I identified the substance of the body-and-blood images as the paint pigment red ochre, in a collagen tempera medium. The blood image areas consist of another pigment, ver-milion, in addition to red ochre and tempera. These paints were in common use during the Middle Ages.

    The paint on the shroud was dilute (0.01 percent in a 0.01 percent gelatin solution). I made up such a paint and an artist friend, Walter Sanford, painted an excellent shroud-like image (see photo at right and my book Judgement Day for the Shroud [Chicago: Mccrone Research Institute, 1996]. pp.145.149). Known as grisaille, the style of the painting, with its very faint, monochromatic image, was also common in the 14th century.

    Based on the complete absence of any reference to the shroud before 1356, Bishop Henri of Poitiers's statement that he knew' the artist, the 14th-century painting style and my test results, I concluded in two papers published in 1980 that the shroud was painted in 1355 ('to give the paint a year to dry"). A third paper in 1981 confirmed these results with X-ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-ray determination of the elements present (iron, mercury and sulfur) in the two paints. Eight years after my published results, the carbon-dating results were reported as 1325 65 year - thus confirming my date of 1355.

    An expert in microanalysis and painting authentication, Walter C. McCrone is director emeritus of the McCrone Reaearch Institute in Chicago, Illinois.

    © Copyright Original Source

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Thanks. That does seem like a rather important argument.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    Have any artists tried it create anything comparable? Any success?
    Yes, multiple times. The bas relief was pretty good but failed miserably in the photographic and fiber analysis. It did look like the negative view of the shroud (that's the faint image visible to the naked eye) but distorted in the positive (which looks like a photo negative to most people). The fibers were hysterically bad - not even close to the original. Pouncing didn't help.

    The camera obscura I mentioned earlier was more promising in those categories but the image was way too poor to compare even to the original negative view.

    No known techniques reproduce the image in all its characteristics.
    Last edited by Teallaura; 10-08-2014, 10:00 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    First, I do not consider the technology is problem. All it takes is a very imaginative innovative artist.
    Have any artists tried it create anything comparable? Any success?

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Raphael View Post
    I should clarify this. I don't think you can accuse people like Gary Habermas of not standing on scripture because they think the Shroud may be genuine. As detailed Habermas has both from Jewish culture of the day and from the Bible how the details of the shroud are not contradictory.
    His conslusions may be different to yours Milady, but they are no less "standing on Scripture."

    But you are claiming that Scripture conclusively proves the shroud is a fake. But it doesn't. I don't think Scripture gives us enough to conclusively reject the Shroud as a fake or to conclusively say it is genuine.

    Because if the Shroud does happen to be real it then it represents positive proof of Christ's resurrection.
    I do not consider scripture a major issue concerning the authenticity of the shroud. Yes, it does not conform to the traditional shroud nor the one described, but the weakness in the authenticity is the shroud itself.

    At the moment I don't think that is has been proved to be genuine, however there are a number of things those consider it to definitely be fake still need to account for.
    Not least of which is if it is faked, how was it made given the technology of whatever era they think it was faked in, and where they think it was made.
    True, it has not been proven to be a fake, but the case for it being real is weak and hypothetical.

    First, I do not consider the technology a problem. All it takes is a very imaginative innovative artist. Some of he problems are anatomical inconsistency of the image, paint found on the shroud, and the current status of the carbon dating of the shroud. Some question the dating, but until it is resolved, that is the dating of the shroud we have.

    Where was it made? Likely a Monastery some place near or north of the holy lands. The material appears to be from that region.

    The known history of the shroud dates to the time when other shrouds were reported to have been made.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-08-2014, 10:55 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Raphael
    replied
    Originally posted by Raphael View Post
    Originally posted by mossrose View Post
    Carry on with your speculation, however. I will stand on scripture.
    Mossy, I have a small problem with your last sentence.
    I should clarify this. I don't think you can accuse people like Gary Habermas of not standing on scripture because they think the Shroud may be genuine. As detailed Habermas has both from Jewish culture of the day and from the Bible how the details of the shroud are not contradictory.
    His conslusions may be different to yours Milady, but they are no less "standing on Scripture."



    Originally posted by mossrose View Post
    I haven't claimed at all that scripture is saying something it isn't.
    But you are claiming that Scripture conclusively proves the shroud is a fake. But it doesn't. I don't think Scripture gives us enough to conclusively reject the Shroud as a fake or to conclusively say it is genuine.

    Originally posted by mossrose View Post
    Tell me this. Why should Christians even care about whether the shroud is real or not?
    Because if the Shroud does happen to be real it then it represents positive proof of Christ's resurrection.

    At the moment I don't think that is has been proved to be genuine, however there are a number of things those consider it to definitely be fake still need to account for.
    Not least of which is if it is faked, how was it made given the technology of whatever era they think it was faked in, and where they think it was made.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    No, no replica has ever been produced that produces all the effects seen in the shroud. A few really cool attempts, however.

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Thank you for the clarification; the language you used IS often intended as a dig at Catholicism or Orthodoxy. In Orthodoxy, icons are venerated by everyone, and regarded as more than mere paint on wood; they are venerated for what they represent. If the Shroud of Turin were to be conclusively proved real, I'd venerate that too - not for its own sake, but because of its association with Jesus Christ.
    I agree. I don't know if it is real or not, of course, but it is an interesting discussion. I first read about it years ago and someone (Ian Wilson maybe?) was advancing the idea that the image was not formed by any known natural process and they thought that it may have been formed as some kind of radiation at the moment of the resurrection. As a kid, that sounded like a pretty cool idea. Doubt it has much scientific validity. Has anyone ever produced a very similar replica? I remember seeing some attempts a while back but they weren't very good replicas.
    Last edited by robrecht; 10-07-2014, 05:44 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    That late at night 'icon' just happened to get pulled out of the vocabulary hat. I'm surprised the thing was coherent at all, to be honest.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by rogue06, 10-20-2021, 05:48 PM
4 responses
44 views
1 like
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Working...
X