Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

An Italian chemist by the name of Luigi Garlaschelli, funded by an atheist group intent on "debunking" the Shroud of Turin, has claimed to have reproduced a copy of the Shroud of Turin, proving that the shroud was a man-made forgery, or so he claims.

Garlaschelli claimed that he used a pigment available around 1200 and applied it to a person who then, wearing a mask, lay prone on a cloth.

Although the story has received some play in the media, remarkably not one story I have seen has noted that numerous scientists and chemists who have examined the shroud have already concluded that the image on the cloth IS NOT the result of a pigment (or even that the results 1988 carbon age testing process have now been rejected).

This seems like a huge DUH to me. Of course you can create an image on a cloth by the use of a pigment. The mystery of the shroud is that science has not been able to explain HOW the image was created, having already rejected the possibility that the shroud is a pigment image.

Why I am not sure about the shroud's authenticity, something unusual continues to happen with the shroud. Atheists assert that scientific and technical advances render moot religious beliefs, but with the shroud, scientific and technical advances only create more intrigue about the shroud.

In 1898, the shroud was generally considered a fraud, but the advent of film photography showed that the image on the cloth was actually a NEGATIVE (ie, on a film negative, the shroud's image is a positive!). Plainly the Garlaschelli copy fails to account for that.

More recently, carbon 14 dating in 1988 again relegated the shroud to the status of a fraud; but advances in the process of carbon dating, as well as the proof that the portion of the shroud tested was not part of the original, but was a middle-ages patch, has even caused the late Ray Rogers, a leader of 1988 carbon dating process, to reject the results of the 1988 testing.

Enhanced digital imaging of the shroud revela what many claim are the imprints of coins over the eyes of the body. The coins in question are known to have been minted and circulated in Palestine in or around 29 A.D. While others dispute that these are images of coins, it is likely that as digital imaging technology improves over the years, this issue may be resolved more decisively. However, if it is proven that the coin imprints are in fact genuine, that would be remarkable.

Enter D1B....

AZGrizFan wrote:Enter D1B....

With his usual, carefully measured reply

(WTF, it's been too long. It's time).

JoltinJoe wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Enter D1B....

With his usual, carefully measured reply

(WTF, it's been too long. It's time).

You ARE a glutton.

AZGrizFan wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
With his usual, carefully measured reply

(WTF, it's been too long. It's time).

You ARE a glutton.

A glutton for victory??

JoltinJoe wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
You ARE a glutton.

A glutton for victory??

You know the definition of Insanity, don't you?

AZGrizFan wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
A glutton for victory??

You know the definition of Insanity, don't you?

I agree that he's insane ...

as a proud Christian liberal/conservative/messed up out of his gord, whatever the Shroud theories are have no effect on me. I believe Jesus is, was, and will come again.

HALLELUJAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JESUS AND OBAMA............THE WINNING TEAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JoltinJoe wrote:An Italian chemist by the name of Luigi Garlaschelli, funded by an atheist group intent on "debunking" the Shroud of Turin, has claimed to have reproduced a copy of the Shroud of Turin, proving that the shroud was a man-made forgery, or so he claims.

Garlaschelli claimed that he used a pigment available around 1200 and applied it to a person who then, wearing a mask, lay prone on a cloth.

Although the story has received some play in the media, remarkably not one story I have seen has noted that numerous scientists and chemists who have examined the shroud have already concluded that the image on the cloth IS NOT the result of a pigment (or even that the results 1988 carbon age testing process have now been rejected).

This seems like a huge DUH to me. Of course you can create an image on a cloth by the use of a pigment. The mystery of the shroud is that science has not been able to explain HOW the image was created, having already rejected the possibility that the shroud is a pigment image.

Why I am not sure about the shroud's authenticity, something unusual continues to happen with the shroud. Atheists assert that scientific and technical advances render moot religious beliefs, but with the shroud, scientific and technical advances only create more intrigue about the shroud.

In 1898, the shroud was generally considered a fraud, but the advent of film photography showed that the image on the cloth was actually a NEGATIVE (ie, on a film negative, the shroud's image is a positive!). Plainly the Garlaschelli copy fails to account for that.

More recently, carbon 14 dating in 1988 again relegated the shroud to the status of a fraud; but advances in the process of carbon dating, as well as the proof that the portion of the shroud tested was not part of the original, but was a middle-ages patch, has even caused the late Ray Rogers, a leader of 1988 carbon dating process, to reject the results of the 1988 testing.

Enhanced digital imaging of the shroud revela what many claim are the imprints of coins over the eyes of the body. The coins in question are known to have been minted and circulated in Palestine in or around 29 A.D. While others dispute that these are images of coins, it is likely that as digital imaging technology improves over the years, this issue may be resolved more decisively. However, if it is proven that the coin imprints are in fact genuine, that would be remarkable.

Sounds kind of funny, Joe, the coins are so clear that we can tell that they were minted in Palestine in or around 29 AD, but there is doubt that they are coins at all? Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

Would be kind of cool if it turned out to be Jesus' shroud and it's in Italy because he fled to Europe after he faked his death and skeedaddled out of Jerusalem one step ahead of the law, just like the Da Vinci code says he did.

houndawg wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:An Italian chemist by the name of Luigi Garlaschelli, funded by an atheist group intent on "debunking" the Shroud of Turin, has claimed to have reproduced a copy of the Shroud of Turin, proving that the shroud was a man-made forgery, or so he claims.

Garlaschelli claimed that he used a pigment available around 1200 and applied it to a person who then, wearing a mask, lay prone on a cloth.

Although the story has received some play in the media, remarkably not one story I have seen has noted that numerous scientists and chemists who have examined the shroud have already concluded that the image on the cloth IS NOT the result of a pigment (or even that the results 1988 carbon age testing process have now been rejected).

This seems like a huge DUH to me. Of course you can create an image on a cloth by the use of a pigment. The mystery of the shroud is that science has not been able to explain HOW the image was created, having already rejected the possibility that the shroud is a pigment image.

Why I am not sure about the shroud's authenticity, something unusual continues to happen with the shroud. Atheists assert that scientific and technical advances render moot religious beliefs, but with the shroud, scientific and technical advances only create more intrigue about the shroud.

In 1898, the shroud was generally considered a fraud, but the advent of film photography showed that the image on the cloth was actually a NEGATIVE (ie, on a film negative, the shroud's image is a positive!). Plainly the Garlaschelli copy fails to account for that.

More recently, carbon 14 dating in 1988 again relegated the shroud to the status of a fraud; but advances in the process of carbon dating, as well as the proof that the portion of the shroud tested was not part of the original, but was a middle-ages patch, has even caused the late Ray Rogers, a leader of 1988 carbon dating process, to reject the results of the 1988 testing.

Enhanced digital imaging of the shroud revela what many claim are the imprints of coins over the eyes of the body. The coins in question are known to have been minted and circulated in Palestine in or around 29 A.D. While others dispute that these are images of coins, it is likely that as digital imaging technology improves over the years, this issue may be resolved more decisively. However, if it is proven that the coin imprints are in fact genuine, that would be remarkable.

Sounds kind of funny, Joe, the coins are so clear that we can tell that they were minted in Palestine in or around 29 AD, but there is doubt that they are coins at all? Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

Would be kind of cool if it turned out to be Jesus' shroud and it's in Italy because he fled to Europe after he faked his death and skeedaddled out of Jerusalem one step ahead of the law, just like the Da Vinci code says he did.

Reports on-line this morning that many scientists have already dismissed this exercise as an usatisfactory explanation.

Also, here is a great discussion about the intrigue abut the shroud which is pretty even-handed.

http://www.shroudstory.com/

As for the coins, here is a pro and con discussion. As for the pro, they claim that enhanced digital imaging shows a pattern of lettering known to have existed on coins minted by Pontius Pilate for use in Palestine round 30 AD.

As for the con, they assert that the appearance of the apparent lettering results from the imprecision and "noise" resulting from the limitations of digitial imaging (and that the coin wold have a spelling error).

I would guess that this issue might become resolved as the process of digital imaging continues to improve.

http://www.factsplusfacts.com/shroud-of-turin-coins.htm
http://www.shroud.com/lombatti.htm

JoltinJoe wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Sounds kind of funny, Joe, the coins are so clear that we can tell that they were minted in Palestine in or around 29 AD, but there is doubt that they are coins at all? Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

Would be kind of cool if it turned out to be Jesus' shroud and it's in Italy because he fled to Europe after he faked his death and skeedaddled out of Jerusalem one step ahead of the law, just like the Da Vinci code says he did.

Reports on-line this morning that many scientists have already dismissed this exercise as an usatisfactory explanation.

Also, here is a great discussion about the intrigue abut the shroud which is pretty even-handed.

http://www.shroudstory.com/

As for the coins, here is a pro and con discussion. As for the pro, they claim that enhanced digital imaging shows a pattern of lettering known to have existed on coins minted by Pontius Pilate for use in Palestine round 30 AD.

As for the con, they assert that the appearance of the apparent lettering results from the imprecision and "noise" resulting from the limitations of digitial imaging (and that the coin wold have a spelling error).

I would guess that this issue might become resolved as the process of digital imaging continues to improve.

http://www.factsplusfacts.com/shroud-of-turin-coins.htm
http://www.shroud.com/lombatti.htm

Joe, why doesnt the catholic church release the shroud for unbiased examination - to people other than your friends and professors you studied under?

Mystery always works in favor of church.

D1B wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
Reports on-line this morning that many scientists have already dismissed this exercise as an usatisfactory explanation.

Also, here is a great discussion about the intrigue abut the shroud which is pretty even-handed.

http://www.shroudstory.com/

As for the coins, here is a pro and con discussion. As for the pro, they claim that enhanced digital imaging shows a pattern of lettering known to have existed on coins minted by Pontius Pilate for use in Palestine round 30 AD.

As for the con, they assert that the appearance of the apparent lettering results from the imprecision and "noise" resulting from the limitations of digitial imaging (and that the coin wold have a spelling error).

I would guess that this issue might become resolved as the process of digital imaging continues to improve.

http://www.factsplusfacts.com/shroud-of-turin-coins.htm
http://www.shroud.com/lombatti.htm

Joe, why doesnt the catholic church release the shroud for unbiased examination - to people other than your friends and professors you studied under?

Mystery always works in favor of church.

The shroud has been frequently been made avaiable for inspection and evaluation. The 1988 Carbon 14 testing is a great example of the shroud being made available to neutral parties for testing. The 1998 testing originally favored a medeival date, but the results are no longer accepted.

Incidentally, is is troubling to me that this chemist, who claims to be neutral, rferences the 1998 test rest results and people's refusal to accept those results as evidence of fananticism of those who believe that the shroud may be authentic. Those results are so plainly impeached that Ray Rogers, before he died, made it a point to write extensively about why he no longer accepted the results that he was instrumental in obtaining in 1988.

JoltinJoe wrote:

D1B wrote:

Joe, why doesnt the catholic church release the shroud for unbiased examination - to people other than your friends and professors you studied under?

Mystery always works in favor of church.

The shroud has been frequently been made avaiable for inspection and evaluation. The 1988 Carbon 14 testing is a great example of the shroud being made available to neutral parties for testing. The 1998 testing originally favored a medeival date, but the results are no longer accepted.

Incidentally, is is troubling to me that this chemist, who claims to be neutral, rferences the 1998 test rest results and people's refusal to accept those results as evidence of fananticism of those who believe that the shroud may be authentic. Those results are so plainly impeached that Ray Rogers, before he died, made it a point to write extensively about why he no longer accepted the results that he was instrumental in obtaining in 1988.

So, carbon dating has proved accurate for a myriad of applications, yet the mystery of shroud continues...

Oh, and twice is "frequently"?

D1B baiting JoltinJoe into a debate...

Wait, people seriously believe in the Shroud of Turin?

Do they believe in all the Catholic relics? Or just this one?

Carbon dating only works on Religious relics...
God stops it from working on dinosaur fossils and things that show the earth being older than 6,000 years



at least thats what Rush told me

D1B wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
The shroud has been frequently been made avaiable for inspection and evaluation. The 1988 Carbon 14 testing is a great example of the shroud being made available to neutral parties for testing. The 1998 testing originally favored a medeival date, but the results are no longer accepted.

Incidentally, is is troubling to me that this chemist, who claims to be neutral, rferences the 1998 test rest results and people's refusal to accept those results as evidence of fananticism of those who believe that the shroud may be authentic. Those results are so plainly impeached that Ray Rogers, before he died, made it a point to write extensively about why he no longer accepted the results that he was instrumental in obtaining in 1988.

So, carbon dating has proved accurate for a myriad of applications, yet the mystery of shroud continues...

Oh, and twice is "frequently"?

The problem with the carbon dating from 1988 that the sample which was taken was from a piece of the cloth which had been damaged and re-woven. As a result, the 1988 testing is now largely rejected. The best evidence is that the shroud is well over 1300 years old. Read up on a guy named Ray Rogers.