Freethought & Rationalism Archive

selfology · 06-11-2002, 07:17 PM

I found this article browsing around on the internet claiming that so calle experts say the shrould was genuine. The article is <a href="http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_599548.html?menu=news.scienceanddiscovery" target="_blank">here</a>

Quote:

By comparing chemical and spectral analyses of the shroud, Professor Piero Savarino told delegates he had proved the image of a man in the material could not have been painted on.

He said: "The image is a result of oxidisation on the surface of the linen and the dehydration of the individual threads at a low temperature. It is a remarkable process and one that could not possibly have been recreated using medieval technology."

Now, although I admit I know nothing of mideavel technology, I don't think the professor knows enough to make this assertaion. Even even if it wasn't fake it doesn't rule out the fact that the shroud could have been someone other than jesus.

Quote:

Swiss textile expert, Dr Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, said the weave and style of material it was made from were the same as would have come from the Dead Sea area at the time of Christ.

She said it could be clearly dated as having been woven in the period 40 years before the birth of Christ to up to 70 years after. She said: "There is no way it could have been a forgery from the 13th or 14th centuries."

I would need to see evidence that this style of weaving was only done in this area of the middle east for a 110 years, and not done before or after, nor in another part of the world. I doubt she could show this.

Quote:

Pathologist Dr Pieluigi Baima Bollone, from Turin University, said the image was identical to the way people looked at the time, as proven by Byzantine coins and illustrations from the period. He also claimed there had been traces of two coins from the time of Pontius Pilate on the shroud.

Now this has got to be the most ridiculous proof of the shrould that I've heard yet. It needs no further comment.

Buffman · 06-12-2002, 12:48 AM

<a href="http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_275.html" target="_blank">http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_275.html</a>

Mike Rosoft · 06-12-2002, 02:49 AM

Counter-arguments to these claims can be found <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20010605024618/http://www.humanist.net/appro-sindone/schafersman.html" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://web.mountain.net/~havoc/rational/turin.html" target="_blank">here</a>.

Edited to add:
>The image is a result of oxidisation on the surface of the linen and the dehydration of the
>individual threads at a low temperature.

Yes, of course. And the plants inside crop circles have the cells damaged in a way that could not be caused by manual creation of the circle.

I'd really like to know how the researcher came to this conclusion.

Mike Rosoft

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: Mike Rosoft ]</p>

Baidarka · 06-16-2002, 05:20 AM

The shroud is an obvious forgery.
If it was real it would have wrapped around the body and head and it would not give us a simple front view of a face but it would display all sides of the body creating what I would call the Alfred E Newman effect.
The Image would be disturbing and strange but it would have had at least a semblance of credibility.
We would see both ears, face and the back of the head in a single image.
Cubism hadn't been invented yet so the forger from the Middle ages could only create a rather conventional front and back view but could not give us the kind of image that would have been created by a bloody body wrapped in a shroud.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-12-2002, 12:48 AM	#2
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	<a href="http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_275.html" target="_blank">http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_275.html</a>

06-12-2002, 02:49 AM	#3
Mike Rosoft Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Prague, Czech Republic Posts: 965	Counter-arguments to these claims can be found <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20010605024618/http://www.humanist.net/appro-sindone/schafersman.html" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://web.mountain.net/~havoc/rational/turin.html" target="_blank">here</a>. Edited to add: >The image is a result of oxidisation on the surface of the linen and the dehydration of the >individual threads at a low temperature. Yes, of course. And the plants inside crop circles have the cells damaged in a way that could not be caused by manual creation of the circle. I'd really like to know how the researcher came to this conclusion. Mike Rosoft [ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: Mike Rosoft ]</p>

06-16-2002, 05:20 AM	#4
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	The shroud is an obvious forgery. If it was real it would have wrapped around the body and head and it would not give us a simple front view of a face but it would display all sides of the body creating what I would call the Alfred E Newman effect. The Image would be disturbing and strange but it would have had at least a semblance of credibility. We would see both ears, face and the back of the head in a single image. Cubism hadn't been invented yet so the forger from the Middle ages could only create a rather conventional front and back view but could not give us the kind of image that would have been created by a bloody body wrapped in a shroud.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.