Turine = Turin

it's always been thought to be a sham. get it? SHAM?!? BWAH!

"it's always been thought to be a sham"

By some, yes. By othes, no.

Religious Relics: Tombs, Teeth and Bits of the Cross
(UK Guardian)

There are many relics connected to Jesus, perhaps most famously the Shroud of Turin, believed by many to be the cloth placed on him at the time of his burial. Others maintain it postdates the death of Christ by hundreds of years. Pieces of the cross are also highly prized, though 16th century theologian John Calvin warned that there were enough pieces of wood purporting to be from the cross to build a ship with.

Santiago de Compostela in Galicia, north-west Spain, has become a magnet for pilgrims because the remains of St James are believed to rest there. Millions have walked to the city to pray.

The little town of Saint-Maximin-la-Sainte-Baume in Provence was transformed in the 13th century after the discovery of a sarcophagus that was proclaimed to be the tomb of Mary Magdalene. A basilica was built to house the supposed relics. Mary Magdalene is said to have lived her last days in a cave in the Sainte-Baume mountains. Some people believe that miracles occur there.

There are also more modern holy relics. A phial of blood taken from the Maltese priest St George Preca, who died in 1962 and was canonised in 2007, is revered by some.

Seen a documentary on this. They used a Camera Obscura and added some silver(Something) to the cloth. They placed a dummy(No Not Buffalo Bob's friend) in behind a window and waited until the sun shone through the glass. The silver Nitrate I think it was burned itself onto the material and when the sun passed by the image disapeared on the linen until it "aged" somewhat and the burnt image of the dummy reapeared up onto the linen.

This will be interesting to see.

But, I suggest that it will be close, but no cigar.

Flury-Lemberg had originally been approached back in the early 1980s to try to date the Shroud by analyzing the structure of the cloth. She refused, "because," she says, "it is impossible to get a serious result dating a textile by textile analysis alone." In 1988, the keepers of the Shroud permitted radiocarbon dating of the relic -- with unanticipated results. The tests indicated that the cloth had been made sometime between 1260 and 1390 A.D., and thus was a medieval forgery rather than the actual burial shroud of Christ. And yet, when Flury-Lemberg finally did agree to head the restoration and conservation of the linen in the summer of 2002, the Shroud had a far different story to tell her. She first noticed that the entire cloth was crafted with a weave known as a three-to-one herringbone pattern. "This kind of weave was special in antiquity because it denoted an extraordinary quality," she says. (Less fine linens of the first century would have had a one-to-one herringbone pattern). That same pattern is present on a 12th century illustration that depicts Christ's funeral cloth, which, she says, is "extremely significant, because it shows that the painter was familiar with Christ's Shroud and that he recognized the indubitably exceptional nature of the weave of the cloth." Flury-Lemberg also discovered a peculiar stitching pattern in the seam of one long side of the Shroud, where a three-inch wide strip of the same original fabric was sewn onto a larger segment. The stitching pattern, which she says was the work of a professional, is surprisingly similar to the hem of a cloth found in the tombs of the Jewish fortress of Masada. The Masada cloth dates to between 40 B.C. and 73 A.D. The evidence, says Flury-Lemberg, is clear: "The linen cloth of the Shroud of Turin does not display any weaving or sewing techniques which would speak against its origin as a high quality product of the textile workers of the first century."

For instance, will it have this second image?

What blood type will be on it, and will it match an artifact known to match the Shroud and in historical custody at least since the 6th century.

"However, the really fascinating evidence comes to light when this cloth is compared to the Shroud of Turin.

The first and most obvious coincidence is that the blood on both cloths belongs to the same group, namely AB.

The length of the nose through which the pleural oedema fluid came onto the sudarium has been calculated at eight centimetres, just over three inches. This is exactly the same length as the nose on the image of the Shroud.

If the face of the image on the Shroud is placed over the stains on the sudarium, perhaps the most obvious coincidence is the exact fit of the stains with the beard on the face. As the sudarium was used to clean the man's face, it appears that it was simply placed on the face to absorb all the blood, but not used in any kind of wiping movement.

A small stain is also visible proceeding from the right hand side of the man's mouth. This stain is hardly visible on the Shroud, but Dr. John Jackson, using the VP-8 and photo enhancements has confirmed its presence.

The thorn wounds on the nape of the neck also coincide perfectly with the bloodstains on the Shroud.

Dr. Alan Whanger applied the Polarized Image Overlay Technique to the sudarium, comparing it to the image and bloodstains on the Shroud. The frontal stains on the sudarium show seventy points of coincidence with the Shroud, and the rear side shows fifty. The only possible conclusion is that the Oviedo sudarium covered the same face as the Turin Shroud"

sham. perhaps a pillow sham.

i worshipped a cheeto for 1 year

not because it was shaped like jesus or even mary.

i worshipped it because it was a cheeto. any sane person would.

Another bit of religious hokum debunked. So what else is new? Maybe another pizza that looks like Jeebus?

Well, NERFHERDER---Worship Holy Cheeto all you want---Don't be surprised, however, if heaven is yellow, crunchy, and often eaten by dogs if dropped on the floor.

"Well, NERFHERDER---Worship Holy Cheeto all you want---Don't be surprised, however, if heaven is yellow, crunchy, and often eaten by dogs if dropped on the floor"

i worship the holy trinity: deep fried, artificially colored, and flavored with MSG.

They used red ochre, which has been said all along to be the material an artist would have used to paint it.

Others, chemists, say there isn't enough red ochre for a drop of blood, much less the amount on the cloth.... that the traces of red ochre came from later artists known to have put their canvasses over the cloth.

"Well, the most interesting thing about this story is the character of the debunkers. Italian atheists and agnostics? And they're taking this aggressive step why?"

Maybe they are sick and tired of hearing about Jeebus.

"Another bit of religous hokum debunked...."

I knew about the Shroud when I was an atheist, and assumed it would eventually be found a fake of some sort.

When I converted to Christianity it wasn't because the Shroud existed. I assumed it would eventually be found a fake of some sort.

God asks that we never put our faith in mere things. The fact of the matter is Jesus' burial shroud was never left with special properties and likely ended it's days wrapping fish, or something.

But I have been interested in the Shroud's apparent ability to defy the analysis of 21st Century science.

I have also been interested by the zealous superficiality of many atheists and agnostics. They've chosen to pick a fight here, for surely morbid and sick reasons.

Let's hope they have their ducks in a row. A high-profile fuck up won't destroy Christianity but may set their peculiar cause back a generation.

The Drudge gerbil is drunk.

The Drudge gerbil is drunk.

Fuck, didn't work!

Well, the most interesting thing about this story is the character of the debunkers. Italian atheists and agnostics? And they're taking this aggressive step why?

The debunking, methods and conclusions, are suspect from start, in recognition of large axes to grind.

It's going to be interesting to see if the science behind the debunkers really substantiates their results. That process might take years.

There's more than one special interest out there with the motivation to perpetrate hoaxes.

Reading this new study, I'm interested to note the researcher felt it necessary to burn holes into the test fabic and also create water damage.

Interesting because everyone knows where and when the burns and water damage occured. There was a fire, molten silver droped on the relic, to be doused out with water.

It's something the guy should have known just by reading. I wonder if it's reasonable to conclude he never did any?

The Shroud has been "reproduced" many times (ie, Shadow Shroud around 2004 or 2005).

Has this shroud "reproduced" the same chemical attributes?

Not to mention that the carbon dating can be thrown out the window now since the sample was from a reweave.

The enemies of the Shroud, IMO, are attacking this sacred object precisely because of it's mojo and power. It threatens them, distracts others from their agenda.

Religous movements through the ages have attempted to smash the icons of their competitors.

Images of the Shroud of Turin and the more recent recreation:

They've chosen to pick a fight here, for surely morbid and sick reasons.

Exposing religious babble as fraud is so... sick.

A high-profile fuck up won't destroy Christianity but may set their peculiar cause back a generation.

What a terrible pity that would be... actually, it wouldn't stop those shits from putting up billboards all over the place or knocking at my door. Too bad.

COLUMBUS, Ohio, August 15 [2008] In his presentation today at The Ohio State University's Blackwell Center, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) chemist, Robert Villarreal, disclosed startling new findings proving that the sample of material used in 1988 to Carbon-14 (C-14) date the Shroud of Turin, which categorized the cloth as a medieval fake, could not have been from the original linen cloth because it was cotton.

God asks that we never put our faith in mere things. The fact of the matter is Jesus' burial shroud was never left with special properties and likely ended it's days wrapping fish, or something.
#16 | Posted by Zed

Seekers of physical proof cannot expect to strengthen their spiritual faith.

Why would I want to strengthen my ability to believe crazy shit for no reason?

I wonder how much "research" funding is going to all this BS.

Carbon dating is the work of natas...

"Exposing religous babble as fraud is so...sick..."

Believers have more invested in exposing such fraud than you do. Tricksterism turns people away from faith.

You should thank the Shroud's keepers, who make no special claims for it, for allowing it to be used to generate some interesting science.

Carbon dating is the work of natas...

Niggaz Ahead of Time And Space?

I haven't heard much from that group lately...

"...proving that the linen some Christians revere as Jesus Christ's burial cloth is a medieval fake."

Actually, he only proved that it could have been faked using technology available at the time.

I'll assume the scientist knows this and that the writer was a little too enthused.....

Carbon dating is the work of natas...

#31 | Posted by Shawn

How did natas get so powerful? I thought God was in charge of the rate of atomic decay! You know I hear he changes the rate of decay arbitrarily just to fuck with the head of the doubters.

That God is sooo Twicksie!

"it's always been thought to be a sham. get it? SHAM?!? BWAH!

#2 | Posted by nanc"

A Sham? Wow! Get it? BWAH!

Mankind? Don't You Dare Blame That Mess On Me!!!!

Still Don't Believe that any Jesus or any God or any Supreme Being would willingly want to take the "Credit" for having knowingly "Created" the violent,reckless,hopeless likes of Mankind!!!!

It always amazes that anybody's faith in an everlasting Creator could hinge simply on some physical item claimed to be somehow miraculous. In other words, who really cares if the Shroud is proven to be a hoax? For people of genuine faith, such a 'revelation' should be meaningless.

I'll assume the scientist knows this and that the writer was a little too enthused

----

That's the problem with these "reproductions" and the reporting of them. They don't know much about the original.

For people of genuine faith, such a 'revelation' should be meaningless.

But to those who value empiricism...

"Those who value empiricism...."

That would be everyone I attend church with.

"That's the problem with these "reproductions" and the reporting of them. They don't know much about the original."

I don't know much about the original either. I really don't have no stake in this either. I was just talking about the reason the resproduction was created: To prove the shroud could have been produced using technology available at the time. It was successful. But you can't claim anything else was proven by this exercise.

So claiming this chemist determined the origin of the real shroud betrays a basic misunderstanding of scientific principles we learn before highschool.

But you can't claim anything else was proven by this exercise.

It offers a simple, mundane explanation to contrast with the fundie claptrap you encounter so often when the shroud is brought up.

That would be everyone I attend church with.

Why the hell are they there?

To prove the shroud could have been produced using technology available at the time. It was successful.

----

Not unless the reproduction has stood up to all the tests the original has. The same thing was said about the Shadow Shroud reproduction about 4 years ago.

Making one that "looks" like the original is just scratching the surface.

"Why the hell are they there....?"

Uh, because they find the division between the sacred and the rational is much over rated, among many other things.

"Fundie claptrap..."

I've seen interesting questions of science raised that aren't solved yet. Your antipathy towards ordinary life doesn't become you.

"It offers a simple, mundane explanation to contrast with the fundie claptrap you encounter so often when the shroud is brought up."

I generally agree with your point except I've never heard a fundie bring it up or discuss it at all.

"Not unless the reproduction has stood up to all the tests the original has. The same thing was said about the Shadow Shroud reproduction about 4 years ago.

Making one that "looks" like the original is just scratching the surface."

I was generally accepting the claim that he can create a reproduction. But to your point, the article doesn't really say how it compares with the original, if at all.

I've seen interesting questions of science raised that aren't solved yet.

If they were all answered, there would be no scientists... scientists live for the questions.

Your antipathy towards ordinary life doesn't become you.

Ordinary life?

A sham? Wow!

If you really want to believe, you'll believe anything.

See the crowds of the weak that flock to see the 'image of mary' on a piece of toast.

Where's the Shroud in the Bible?

What?!?! It's not there?!?!
Yawwwn

Catholics and their relics.
I wonder about the cheese allegedly from Mary's....nevermind.

Still Don't Believe that any Jesus or any God or any Supreme Being would willingly want to take the "Credit" for having knowingly "Created" the violent,reckless,hopeless likes of Mankind!!!!

Why not? He created us in his own image. Ever read the old testament? Holy shit talk about violent, reckless and hopeless.

We already know that the relic is not ancient, so what is the point of this exercise? The "scientist" was paid by a group of atheists to perform this so-called experiment, so the outcome was predictable.

But what he is proving as nothing to do with the original shroud. All he did was fabricate a replica. That tells you nothing about the original.

Just more illogical fodder for the God-haters.

Just more illogical fodder for the God-haters.

#55 | Posted by Dinsey at 2009-10-07 06:08 AM

How can you hate something that doesn't exist?

I think some people's perspective is all wrong. For example, I know the cross in my church was made in the 1960s. Whether Jesus or Spartacus or nobody hung from that cross is irrelevant. I still show it respect and reverence for what it symbolizes. I think we can respect the Shroud for what it is, regardless of whether it was made in the 11th century or the 1st century.

its a damn bed sheet. Do you also show respect to your paper lunch sack? talk about a loon

"Do you also show respect to your paper luch sack...?"

Sure, if you value lunch.

The Mona Lisa is just a piece of canvas with some paint on it. It's more or less the same stuff that toilet paper is made from, but I wouldn't wipe my butt with it.

"For example, I know the cross in my church was made in the 1960s. Whether Jesus or Spartacus or nobody hung from that cross is irrelevant."

I would understand your argument, if the cross you refer to was supposedly to have been the crucifixation cross. Then it would make all teh difference in many religions if someone was nailed to it or not.

The replication act does just what it needed to do, fool people who said it couldn't be done. It was done and therefore the shroud now has the burden to prove it's authenticity. If the church is soooo open to it being tested then why won't they let scientist come in and test it?

LM

It was done and therefore the shroud now has the burden to prove it's authenticity. If the church is soooo open to it being tested then why won't they let scientist come in and test it?

----

The majority of research on the shroud proves its authenticity. The only thing that doesn't is the carbon dating. The sample used was from a rewoven patch and is not representative of the rest of the shroud. Thus, the middle ages date is not accurate.

Further carbon dating might not be possible because of contamination and cleaning from a restoration of a shroud that has happened in the past few years.

Radio carbon dating carried out in 1988 was performed on an area of the relic that was repaired in the 16th century, according to Ray Rogers, who helped lead the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STRP).

At the time he argued firmly that the shroud, which bears a Christlike image, was a clever forgery.

...

"But now I am coming to the conclusion that it has a very good chance of being the piece of cloth that was used to bury the historic Jesus."

It's funny to see all of the remarks from people saying things like, this should shut the believers up now. I've never seen one instance on this board where a believer based an argument on or even brought up the subject of the shroud.

Radio carbon dating carried out in 1988 was performed on an area of the relic that was repaired in the 16th century, according to Ray Rogers, who helped lead the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STRP).

I guess that carbon dating worked. They didn't know the Shroud had been "reworked" up until then. A pity the Church got cold feet after that. I wonder why?

I heard they just found Jesus's beatoff sock.

They didn't know the Shroud had been "reworked" up until then.

Very convenient for them, no?

What the heck was Haysoos doing in Torino anyways? Probably mooching another meal as was his habit. What would be nice would be some contemporary evidence (contemporary to the Christ, that is)other than the so-called Gospels written a lifetime later that JC actually existed, actually lived at all. And what did he have against amputees anyhow?

They didn't know the Shroud had been "reworked" up until then.

----

They being the scientists.

Who did they wrap up to reproduce it? Obama?

Now if they could just reproduce Obama's birth certificate to show that it's a forgery as well.

"Written a lifetime after JC existed..."

Only a person wholly uninterested in this subject would assert such nonsense.

"What did he have against amputees...."

Just as a brain-teaser, assuming you have that organ, how many amputees do you think there were in 1st Century Judea?

No heavy machinery, automobiles, or high explosives to create amputated limbs.

Then of course, a large percentage of those that did undergo amputations died during the procedure for what should be obvious reasons.

You might as well ask what Jesus had against dead people, given He only brought three of them back to life during His ministry.

Hey you idiots, was or was not the Venus de Milo a double amputee?BTW the gospels were written seventy years later. That's a lifetime even by modern standards. Come on, if faith can move mountains why do we need backhoes?

Hey you idiots, was or was not the Venus de Milo a double amputee?BTW the gospels were written seventy years later. That's a lifetime even by modern standards. Come on, if faith can move mountains why do we need backhoes?

If it's worth saying it's worth saying twice.

Hey you idiots, was or was not the Venus de Milo a double amputee?

Touche Goaty

You might as well ask what Jesus had against dead people, given He only brought three of them back to life during His ministry.

#73 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-07 10:56 PM

Three of the dead brought back to life and ZombieHunter has been hot on their trail ever since.

The disbelievers needed no further proof that the shroud of Turin was not the burial cloth of Jesus and the believers will believe wot they want to believe regardless of any proofs.

Actually, he only proved that it could have been faked using technology available at the time.

~Sully

See?

The Shroud's lack of authenticity has already been well documented by carbon dating.

Proving the thing could have been faked back when it first surfaced is really just the icing on that particular FAILcake.

A final T crossed and I dotted, if you will.

That all sed the Cheeto stuff was farking hilarious.

i worship the holy trinity: deep fried, artificially colored, and flavored with MSG.

#13 | Posted by NerfHerder

rAmen!

Be Well.

/Entering the DRagon
stag left.

*sigh*

By the way, this Italian scientist got the order wrong. The blood was on the original shroud first and the image second. The Italian scientist put the image first and the blood second.