Scientist Says Turin Shroud Not a Medieval Fake


Recommended Posts

oddcrap

PARIS - The Shroud of Turin, which some Christians believe is Jesus Christ's burial cloth, may not be the fake scientific tests have concluded because they analyzed a patch put on it, according to a U.S. scientist. Raymond N. Rogers of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico published a paper this week arguing that new dating tests showed the 1988 tests were from a cloth patch probably sewn on after a fire damaged the Shroud in 1532. The linen Shroud measuring 4.4 by 1.2 meters (14.5 by 3.9 feet) bears the image, eerily reversed like a photographic negative, of a crucified man believers say was Christ. One of Christianity's most disputed relics, it is locked away at Turin Cathedral in Italy and rarely exhibited. It was last on display in 2000 and may not be shown again until 2025. Radiocarbon dating tests by laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Tucson, Arizona in 1988 caused a sensation by dating it from between 1260 and 1390. Sceptics said it was a hoax, possibly made to attract the profitable medieval pilgrimage business.

But Rogers, writing in the scientific review Thermochimica Acta, wrote: "The dye found on the radiocarbon sample was not used in Europe before about 1291." "The radiocarbon sample was thus not part of the original cloth and is invalid for determining the age of the shroud," he wrote in the article on the Internet (www.sciencedirect.com). Rogers said one dating test, which measures the gradual disappearance of the compound vanillin in linen, found it was present in the patch analyzed in 1988 but not on the main body of the Shroud. He said linens found with the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date back to the time of Christ, also show no vanillin. He estimated the Shroud could be anywhere from 1,300 to 3,000 years old. Scientists are at a loss to explain how the image was made and most agree it could not have been painted or printed. The Catholic Church does not claim the Shroud, which is believed to have been brought to Europe from the Middle East during the Crusades in the mid-14th century, is authentic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ZTrang

So this article implies that somehow, the original test was done on a small part of the shroud that just happened to be patched on after it was made? What is the likelihood of that? Somehow, this article doesn't leave me convinced that the original tests were invalid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
oddcrap

Well it come's from reuters, which is a very reliable source.

Link to post
Share on other sites
tomwarren

Please remember to post a link to a source and in the correct forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chode

Umm, yeah. His logic is mostly the type of dye used on the shroud..... so he's saying that Radiocarbon dating is completely innacurate (not innacurate to a thousand years or so....COMPLETELY innacurate).

Even today it's a mystery how it was done, so I don't think that a rare dye proves much.

Look at images of the shroud, notice a line around the neck? The face that appears on it is not the original, it was modified somehow.

The most intriguing theory I've read is of Leonardo Da Vinci doing the shroud, as an anti-Church gesture. The head on "Christ" is his own, and he used a form of chemical photography.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kennyout

eh this is old news, and sounds like trash

when the shroud was in the fire, whatever fire particles (dust/bacteria) got onto it, so that made the test come out that it was younger, not a newlly sown patch....

heck they even redid the test based on that thought and it came out older...(i saw this on tv, on History Channel)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
nvizible

personally, im a catholic, and the authenticity or lack thereof pertaining to such objects would not reduce my faith in the least. in fact, if someone proved conclusively to me tomorrow that god doesn't exist, i would continue believing, as its not the existance of god that draws me to religion, rather the order and ethics of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt
eh this is old news, and sounds like trash

when the shroud was in the fire, whatever fire particles (dust/bacteria) got onto it, so that made the test come out that it was younger, not a newlly sown patch....

heck they even redid the test based on that thought and it came out older...(i saw this on tv, on History Channel)

585378683[/snapback]

they only did the test once because they were allow only to test a small piece of the shroud.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.