"Turin Shroud 'is not a medieval forgery'"

[fallingblood]

Stop trying to justify yourself. You didn't read the site and you have no idea what it says. Any and all remarks you have about the content of the site, including the validity of that content, are nothing more than guesses.

I looked over the page, and find it lacking credibility. If you want to bring their arguments up here, I will address them. But I will not waste my time on nonscientific, noncited sources, that show a clear bias, as can be seen on their front page, when they describe Christianity as being silly.

So I don't have to guess at the biases and the validity of that content, as one, the author is very up front about his biases, and it isn't cited.

More guesswork. You leap to conclusions a lot, do you?

Not really guesswork when he states that Christianity is a silly belief that needs to be debunked. Not leaping to conclusions either. It is simply using logic.

Why don't I show it? Yeah, that's a good idea. maybe I could provide you with a link to a page on the internet that details the points about the issue.

Oh wait, that only works if you READ the page.

Since the page is not scientific or cited, and is biased, you might as well just sum up his ideas and post them here. Instead of expecting others to read biased accounts (if you really want, I can provide an equally biased site that refutes your site) on some link, why not make the argument here?

Or, like I said, if you really want, I can provide an equally biased website that claims that the shroud is real, and that the dating before was incorrect. It should suffice.

He provides plenty of information for you to check yourself. It's not that hard. Learn to use Google.

Why should I waste my time making sure his views are correct by using Google? Why should I be expected to do that extra research when the author couldn't cite his sources? Honestly, that is ridiculous.

Can you find more recent results about these things then?

No, but that is why additional studies need to be done, such as the one posted in the OP. We can't just rely on decades old research. That wouldn't be accepted for nearly any other field of science.

So let me get this straight...

There are a bunch of people out there who claim that the dating method used is invalid, but they can't show where the problem occurred, they can't show what the problem is, but they all decide that it's wrong, and also (shock horror) they all have reasons to want the shroud to be genuine, thus motivating them to reject any test result that disagrees with their beliefs... And you don't think that's a problem?

You don't have it straight, and in fact are purposely ignoring what the opposition states. They do show where the problem occurred. The study mentioned in the OP also states where the problem occurred.

And who says that all have reasons to want the shroud to be genuine? That is a silly claim. And it shows a bias. The implication is that anyone that would want to research the Shroud must be a Christian, and thus must have an axe to grind. That simply is not true.

As I've said, he gives plenty of details that are easily checkable. And he looks for the people who are knowledgable about this, such as experts in the techniques used.

He looks for people who agree with him. He already made up his mind that the belief was silly, and thus went to prove that. And really, why should I be expected to waste my time to double check all of his details, only to be linked to many other websites?

So? He starts out with his viewpoint, and then explains his rationale for having that viewpoint.

That is not how one should go about research. You can't let one's viewpoint lead the research. That is called being biased. And of course he is going to find evidence to support his view, because one can find evidence to support any view.

He did not set out to be neutral, but instead set out to explain a silly belief. That is biased. It is not credible, and there is no reason why anyone should be expected to waste their time with it.

As for McCrone, he doesn't actually address the major contamination, that being that the claim, as presented in the research referenced in the OP, is that what was tested was part of a repair done at a later date. That certainly would prove to be a problem.

If the radiocarbon dating was so strong in this instance, it wouldn't be debated so much by academics. The chemical analysis of the threads studied, which have been presented in many peer-reviewed journals, do not appear similar to the chemical composition of the rest of the threads on the Shroud. That is why people such as Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks that more studies must be done.

If you want to be scientific, it becomes a must that further studies must be done. A few studies done in the 80s simply do not suffice, especially with all the concern that has been raised since then. I find it amazing that so many who want the Shroud to be a hoax are so unwilling to abide by the scientific method. Instead of actually retesting, and doing more research, they just dismiss all who disagree with them.

So sure, you can cite a biased site, that quotes one scientist. Big deal. Many others disagree with him for a variety of reasons. To believe one person, over all others, is not scientific or rational; it is a leap of faith.

 

[Muffled]

While I have no opinion in this matter per se, I find it amusing that Creationists will often have difficulties with methods of dating when it comes to earth time period and dinosaurs etc as well as finding fault with so many aspects of evolution and other seemingly conflicting scientific statements, but quickly accept such when it supports their position. To accept such dating on the Shroud of Turin must include some acceptance of the corresponding work in the other areas dealing with dating.

I believe the fact that two different scientific methods could come up with such disparate results underscores the rpoblems with scientific dating. Also it points out that conclusions are often biased by expectations.

 

[Muffled]

Was the shroud signed? Did it come with documents?
How do we know this is the image of Jesus and not Shlomo the rug seller?

The man looks Etruscan to me. The Etruscans were early enemies of Romulus and Remus and their desndents since they were in the land first and it is highly likely that the Romans executed tehm by crucifixion.

"Crucifixion was used among the Seleucids, Carthaginians, and Romans from about the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD." quote from Wikipedia's article on crucifixion.

 

[outhouse]

I believe the fact that two different scientific methods could come up with such disparate results underscores the rpoblems with scientific dating. Also it points out that conclusions are often biased by expectations.

Except for one huge problem.

The difference is due to two biased theist who already believed the shroud to be first century before he even started testing in his home lab, and Fanti in his lab.

Rogers and Fanti both have no credibility as both claim supernatural origins for the image on the cloth.


The unbiased testing came back perfectly in a small window of time. This time is exactly when the shroud became public in a time when fraudulent biblical relics were everywhere and very popular. Way over a thousand years after jesus death.

 

[outhouse]

It very strongly implies the supernatural. Unless you know of many people who, once crucified, emit "a blast of “exceptional radiation”".

Exactly :clap


It FACTUALLY implies MAGIC created the image.

Radiation in the amount required to leave a image, is factually supernatural.

 

[fallingblood]

Except for one huge problem.

The difference is due to two biased theist who already believed the shroud to be first century before he even started testing in his home lab, and Fanti in his lab.

Rogers and Fanti both have no credibility as both claim supernatural origins for the image on the cloth.

Fanti does not claim supernatural origins. He claims that radiation is the cause. Radiation is not supernatural. As for Rogers, he has nothing to do with this. He is dead. He had no part of this.

More so, every researcher has biases. However, it was not just Fanti who conducted this study. It was conducted at a University, but multiple researchers. Are you going to claim everyone in the department, as well as those who are peer-reviewing the work are all biased theists? Do such is just ridiculous.

But it is becoming clear that your problem with this person is that he is a theist. You haven't read his work (for much of this discussion you were talking about someone completely different), and based on that ignorance, you are trying to discredit him because he doesn't agree with you. That is more than just a little ridiculous.

The unbiased testing came back perfectly in a small window of time. This time is exactly when the shroud became public in a time when fraudulent biblical relics were everywhere and very popular. Way over a thousand years after jesus death.

There is no such thing as unbiased testing. Everyone has biases. More so, there are many questions about those previous testing. They did not come back perfectly, and the "small window" was actually not that small. Many scientists, many articles (in peer-reviewed journals) have questioned the testing. Which is why there are questions. Why shouldn't we then seek to answer those questions and continue doing science? For someone who accepts science, you appear to instead be blindly following a belief that makes you happy.

As for when the Shroud became public, we really don't know. It is not unheard of, and actually quite common for artifacts to be lost, and only found later on. Why rule that out?

All you have shown is that you can badmouth, and dismiss others. That simply doesn't work with people who don't believe as you do. If you want to make an argument, you need to make an argument. The mentality that everyone is wrong if they don't believe like me is just as bad as the hardcore evangelical Christians.

 

[fallingblood]

Exactly :clap


It FACTUALLY implies MAGIC created the image.

Radiation in the amount required to leave a image, is factually supernatural.

No it isn't. There is no implication of magic. There is no implication of the supernatural. Simply because you use the word factually, doesn't make it so. Especially since the article never states that Fanti thinks that a body emitted this radiation.

 

[philbo]

Fanti does not claim supernatural origins. He claims that radiation is the cause.

So, as a scientist, he'll have duplicated the effects of radiation on cloth to see if he can reproduce the effect? Or at least be able to cite somebody else who has done the tests...

 

[fallingblood]

So, as a scientist, he'll have duplicated the effects of radiation on cloth to see if he can reproduce the effect? Or at least be able to cite somebody else who has done the tests...

Does he need to duplicate the actual effect though? Does science demand that? Not really. After all, we can't duplicate the effects of the origins of life, but that doesn't mean we must rule out the possible theories.

The cause of the image does not appear to actually be the area of study for this research. It appears that the area of focus was the dating. The actual theory that the effect was caused by radiation appears to be a result of this study.

Could the effect be duplicated in such a manner? I'm not sure if that has been tested. But I'm sure that would be the next step.

Edit* I stand corrected. From what I'm reading, the idea behind the radiation rests on the corona discharge effect. From what it seems, such testing has been done.

 

[outhouse]

So, as a scientist, he'll have duplicated the effects of radiation on cloth to see if he can reproduce the effect? Or at least be able to cite somebody else who has done the tests...

The reason they cannot explain the image, is because the image is not from natural causes.

A image like that would not be left on a piece of cloth, from a short period, or a long one.

The only rational explanation is clear cut artistic fraud

 

[fallingblood]

The reason they cannot explain the image, is because the image is not from natural causes.

A image like that would not be left on a piece of cloth, from a short period, or a long one.

The only rational explanation is clear cut artistic fraud

That simply is false. There have been studies showing that large blasts of radiations can in fact produce such images. So it is rational, and in fact supported, that radiation could in fact produce such images. There are also a number of other theories, which have been tested.

The "artistic" explanation does not actually produce the same sort of image though. Yes, there was a recent study done in Italy that said it could reproduce such an image. And on the surface, they were correct. However, when further studied, at a fiber level, they did not cut it.

Also, to call it a fraud is not rational at all. Do you have any evidence that this object was produced in order to deceive anyone? Do you have any evidence that it was even purposely created? No you don't. Thus your conclusion is not rational. For someone dismissing others for supposedly being biased, you are the one who clearly holds a bias here.

 

[outhouse]

I like this one too.

The Turin Shroud is a fake: Eminent historian claims it was one of 40 similar cloths which originated 1,300 years AFTER the crucifixion | Mail Online

The Turin Shroud is a fake… and it’s one of 40: Historian claims linen cloths were produced 1,300 years after crucifixion

Not only is the Turin Shroud probably a medieval fake but it is just one of an astonishing 40 so-called burial cloths of Jesus, according to an eminent church historian.

Antonio Lombatti said the false shrouds circulated in the Middle Ages, but most of them were later destroyed.

He said the Turin Shroud itself – showing an image of a bearded man and venerated for centuries as Christ’s burial cloth – appears to have originated in Turkey some 1,300 years after the Crucifixion.

carbon tests carried out in Oxford in 1988 firmly dated the material to 1260-1390.
​

This is not from some keyboard jockey with a biased opinion. This man is a credible historian.

​

​

 

[fallingblood]

I like this one too.

The Turin Shroud is a fake: Eminent historian claims it was one of 40 similar cloths which originated 1,300 years AFTER the crucifixion | Mail Online

The Turin Shroud is a fake… and it’s one of 40: Historian claims linen cloths were produced 1,300 years after crucifixion

Not only is the Turin Shroud probably a medieval fake but it is just one of an astonishing 40 so-called burial cloths of Jesus, according to an eminent church historian.

Antonio Lombatti said the false shrouds circulated in the Middle Ages, but most of them were later destroyed.

He said the Turin Shroud itself – showing an image of a bearded man and venerated for centuries as Christ’s burial cloth – appears to have originated in Turkey some 1,300 years after the Crucifixion.

carbon tests carried out in Oxford in 1988 firmly dated the material to 1260-1390.
​

This is not from some keyboard jockey with a biased opinion. This man is a credible historian.

​

​

How do you know that he is credible when all you have to go on is an article from a less than reputable news agency? It's because, if he agrees with you, the. He is credible. If he doesn't, the. He must be dismissed.

More so, whether there were other shrouds produced at that time or not (and I don't see the actual evidence for that claim, please provide an actual source for one of these shrouds), it means nothing. One can also find similar burial cloths dating to the first century.

Why don't you stop trying to side step the issue by insulting those who don't believe like you and actually address the issue? Or is it just easier to keep your blind faith?

 

[outhouse]

This is funny

Why the Shroud of Turin is Fake



Why the Shroud of Turin is Fake


know what you're thinking: "That's just the way his body and arms were positioned when he was laid in his tomb."

I think not.

And you can perform your own little experiment to demonstrate why not.


Lie on your back on a hard surface (such as the floor) as the figure is in the image, and just try to cover your privates with your hands. I am a person of average proportions and I had to stretch my arms with some effort to be able to barely cover them. Yet the figure in the shroud image seems to be accomplishing this with relaxed ease. The arms don't appear to be stretched out at all.

Now just relax your arms to the floor, like a corpse, and see where your relaxed hands cross on your body. For me, they don't cross at all. My fingertips barely cross around my navel - well above the private area. To be able to cross them at all in this position, I have to lift my arms somewhat off the floor, and they still to not reach the private area with any degree of relaxation. And no one is more relaxed than a corpse.

 

[fallingblood]

It's irrelevant. But good try. If you actually dealt with the material you may get further. Quote mining does little for people who actually know what research is.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Here is an extensive list of the Scientific peer reviewed research, papers, and articles concerning the Shroud so far. Some are in technical language requiring college level understanding.

Scientific Papers and Articles

 

[fallingblood]

Here is an extensive list of the Scientific peer reviewed research, papers, and articles concerning the Shroud so far. Some are in technical language requiring college level understanding.

Scientific Papers and Articles

Thank you for the link. Obviously, I can't say I read them all, but they do provide a wide array of views. Directly related to this thread, as it relates to Fanti, there are a couple of good articles by him there.

 

[philbo]

Does he need to duplicate the actual effect though? Does science demand that? Not really. After all, we can't duplicate the effects of the origins of life, but that doesn't mean we must rule out the possible theories.

What? That's exactly what any scientist worth the name would do: try and find a way of testing a theory.

Edit* I stand corrected. From what I'm reading, the idea behind the radiation rests on the corona discharge effect. From what it seems, such testing has been done.

I'm a bit confused, tbh: corona discharge != radiation - very high electrical potential causing ionization. You'll get radiation given off in a huge range of wavelengths, but that's a by-product. I'm wondering if that's an artifact of translation rather than what Fanti was actually talking about.

Some of the results of testing corona discharge are pretty damn cool.. can't help but wonder what the outcome of a lightning strike would be if earthed through a model with some kind of cover - now that would be real Frankenstein-like science

 

[fallingblood]

What? That's exactly what any scientist worth the name would do: try and find a way of testing a theory.

Not really. Often, scientist can not duplicate an effect (such as the evolution of humans) or it would be too unethical to try. Science is also about observation. And often, when a theory is created, testing should be done; however, duplicating is not necessary.

I'm a bit confused, tbh: corona discharge != radiation - very high electrical potential causing ionization. You'll get radiation given off in a huge range of wavelengths, but that's a by-product. I'm wondering if that's an artifact of translation rather than what Fanti was actually talking about.

Some of the results of testing corona discharge are pretty damn cool.. can't help but wonder what the outcome of a lightning strike would be if earthed through a model with some kind of cover - now that would be real Frankenstein-like science

Reading a couple of articles by Fanti, it definitely is what he is talking about. He has even tested the theory, and found that such a cause a perfect replica; however, only small areas have been able to be reproduced. This is why he says that the blast of radiation would have to be considerable.

 

[outhouse]

One doesnt need to dig deep on this.

Since there is no natural method for the image to have appeared from a dead body with such deatail, those who believe it is real first. Are searching for these supernatural methods when it has already been show how they made this forgery, and in fact! they recreated a identical image using ancient methods known to exist 1300 years ago.

Nothing at all screams original, and everything screams out fraud loudly.