General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNew book claims (with no real evidence,) that Shroud of Turin is "real."
Even though all credible evidence shows it a fake made in the Middle Ages.
A viewing of the The Shroud of Turin, thought by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, will reportedly be televised Saturday on Italian State TV in what is said to be former Pope Benedict XVIs parting gift to the Catholic Church.
The televised viewing of the shroud on Holy Saturday will be the first in 40 years, according to a report in the Guardian newspaper.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/03/shroud-of-turin-hits-airwaves-amid-new-claims-that-its-real/
GeorgeGist
(25,324 posts)Losers that is.
Not surprising that.
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)Invisible.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)PS - this country does need a good enema!
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)former9thward
(32,093 posts)It says there is new evidence. Do you think no one reads the links?
Archae
(46,354 posts)Don't forget ABC news sent a reporter to South America to talk up all sorts of "miracles" from an obvious con artist.
former9thward
(32,093 posts)Have you read the book? How do you know the evidence is "bogus"? Are you a scientist who is qualified to speak about their tests? The book was written by two Italian scientists who performed tests on the cloth. Your posts sound like a typical anti-science rants.
Archae
(46,354 posts)The fact that all *CREDIBLE* evidence says it 's a fake.
http://www.skepdic.com/shroud.html
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Lol. People invested in either utter belief or utter denial make shitty analysts.
former9thward
(32,093 posts)That why you have to shout it. Typical anti-science view.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Fanti (who appears to make his living off shroud research), claims...
So in other words, numerous independent labratories who used radiocarbon dating techniques accepted by scientists the world over, got it wrong because this mysterious burst of resurection energy skewed their results.
I've heard better "evidence" from the creationists.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)It's up his ass, I'm guessing, because that's where he pulled it out.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)When (and if) he publishes his information in a peer reviewed journal, rather than self publishing it in a book for profit, then perhaps he'll be taken seriously.
former9thward
(32,093 posts)I watched ABC News this evening and they had an interview. He said the scientists who dated it in the Middle Ages had tested fibers in areas of the shroud that were repaired in that time period. Many scientists have also made the claim. Interesting how people damn the evidence when they haven't even read the book.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)No need to consider anything for themselves
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)This is countered with a self-published non-peer reviewed book.
Kinda makes you go hmmmmmm.
Just sayin'
byeya
(2,842 posts)appeared in public. The Church heretofore has never claimed it to be authentic in my understanding. The Church allows it to be an object of veneration but there's been no claim it's the burial shroud.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)and I thought that would surely be the end of him as a journalist, but...that didn't happen. Haven't heard Will talk about the Shroud lately, tho...
RC
(25,592 posts)dsc
(52,169 posts)in that things got reinvented in the Middle ages all the time. The weave could have been existed for the shroud, been forgotten, and then reinvented. The carbon dating on the other hand seems pretty hard to dismiss.
ChoppinBroccoli
(3,784 posts)I saw a PBS special on the Shroud of Turin years ago. Using technology, they were able to not only determine that the corpse underneath the shroud had coins on his eyes, but they were actually able to see some of the images and script of the coins and place them in the same time period that the carbon dating proved the shroud was from.
Science kicks religion's ass again.
RC
(25,592 posts)On September 28, 1988, British Museum director and coordinator of the study Michael Tite communicated the official results to the Diocese of Turin and to the Holy See. In a well-attended press conference on October 13, Cardinal Ballastrero announced the official results, i.e. that radio-carbon testing dated the shroud to a date of 1260-1390 CE, with 95% confidence. The official and complete report on the experiment was published in Nature.[35] The uncalibrated dates from the individual laboratories, with 1-sigma errors (68% confidence), were as follows:
Tucson: 646 ± 31 years;
Oxford: 750 ± 30 years,
Zurich: 676 ± 24 years old
the weighted mean was 689 ± 16 years, which corresponds to calibrated ages of CE 1273-1288 with 68% confidence, and CE 1262-1384 with 95% confidence.
As reported in Nature, Professor Bray of the Instituto di Metrologia 'G. Colonetti', Turin, "confirmed that the results of the three laboratories were mutually compatible, and that, on the evidence submitted, none of the mean results was questionable."[35]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_14_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin
dsc
(52,169 posts)ie it is compelling. The weave thing isn't though.
UTUSN
(70,753 posts)msongs
(67,456 posts)former9thward
(32,093 posts)No serious historian of the period says that.
Archae
(46,354 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)former9thward
(32,093 posts)When your religion is atheism you must put your faith in denial.
Archae
(46,354 posts)Any more than being bald is having hair.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Apophis
(1,407 posts)Yet why do people still hold onto their faith that it's real?
Stupid!
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Apophis
(1,407 posts)sakabatou
(42,179 posts)Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)It also shows a body that is bleeding after it supposedly expired.
Corpses do not bleed; they have no blood pressure. Blood pools at the lowest point of the body.
The Shroud shows bleeding from the wounds in the hands of the 'corpse', hands which are located at the front of the 'body', positioned at the highest point.
Any mortician, medical student, doctor or coroner can tell you that.
byeya
(2,842 posts)hair.
Bigmack
(8,020 posts)And so is the piece of the True Cross that I picked up in Istanbul a few years ago. Certificate of Authenticity in three languages, too.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)People believe anything they want to believe. Drop belief... and all you have left are the facts. How boring.
longship
(40,416 posts)Listen to his interview on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe -- Episode 17, where he talks about the Shroud and his investigation.
Here: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=17
Sorry, folks. The Shroud of Turin is a well documented fraud from the time it first "miraculously" appeared, as are nearly all religious artifacts.
Pius fraud, but nevertheless, fraud.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)The tell of atomic bondings within a substance. By adding up the amounts of different bondings, one can make an educated guess (depending on how ambiguous data is) about the molecule you are looking at. This could be used to look at the decay-rate of molecules, but (according to wikipedia) the decay-rate of molecules is not very reliable when determining age.
The other spectra he mentioned are probably XPS-spectra: They can be used to identify atom-species, but it would be difficult to tell apart isotopic features and bonding-features. (And he would have to destroy his sample to get REALLY reliable results.)
Second: How do we know it's human blood? Did they test the blood-cells for human blood-types?
Third: Please note the silence of the Catholic Church.
Counterfeiting relics was a huge market during the Middle Ages. And the Catholic Church never took steps to root those fake relics out. What if they fear that the Shroud of Turin is one of those "sanctioned" fake relics from back then?