Film, Media & TV1 min ago
The Turin Shroud
25 Answers
Does anyone have any thoughts or theories about it - and does anyone know what the latest research has divulged?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I know some learned people think that it really is the imprint of Jacques Molay, the Knights Templar leader and the image was produced in the late13th Century-early 14th by using silver nitrate or silver sulphate as a early photographic technique.The suggestion that the image was made from lactic acid and blood from injuries sustained while being tortured is an idea but more research has proven that the person may not of actually been dead but in a coma and lying in a bed.
I'll continue to nose around and see what facts or interesting snippets I can find regarding more recent research.
I'll continue to nose around and see what facts or interesting snippets I can find regarding more recent research.
While looking for more info on the subject I came across an interesting story concerning images that have formed on cloth when placed around the deceased.I had often thought that if such a enigma today was at one time a process or was it a fluke. If it were a process then why are there no other imprints or images transfered in this manner?
Scientists have found that not only could it be an image produced by using certain chemicals on the cloth but also it may be chemicals used at that period of time in the production of the cloth and temperature mixed with compounds from the tomb a person was placed in. Could it be a combination of factors that produced the image which unless we know the formula and have the same conditions will not be able to reproduce the same effect today.
I'm still searching.
Scientists have found that not only could it be an image produced by using certain chemicals on the cloth but also it may be chemicals used at that period of time in the production of the cloth and temperature mixed with compounds from the tomb a person was placed in. Could it be a combination of factors that produced the image which unless we know the formula and have the same conditions will not be able to reproduce the same effect today.
I'm still searching.
I think it best to put the Jacque Molay story on a backburner(no torture pun intended).I know the king at that time was trying to eradicate the Freemasonary order(medieval pirates with brains) because of their knowledge,various antiquities they possessed and money but in the great scheme of things....why make an imprint on cloth of someone who nobody really gave two hoots about?
Back to the drawing board or in my case.....Etch A Sketch.
Back to the drawing board or in my case.....Etch A Sketch.
I think if somehow scientists were to be able to prove that the image on the shroud was not Jesus, Would the Church and followers of faith accept their evidence?
Or if they found without a doubt that it was Jesus' imprint ,would that change every persons view who ever doubted the existence of the man?
What do you think Naomi?
Or if they found without a doubt that it was Jesus' imprint ,would that change every persons view who ever doubted the existence of the man?
What do you think Naomi?
The reference you're after, Naomi, is "The Jesus Conspiracy" by Holger Kersten & Elmar R Gruber which, despite its OTT title, is a very well-researched book about the shroud.
To me the thing is a complete mystery, viz:
Even if it is the shroud of a crucified person there is no reason to believe that that person was Jesus: the gospels have too little historical basis for us to trust any of their details, especially about the crucifixion. Besides, the Romans crucified countless thousands of people.
The laboratory research of a few years ago which purported to show that it is a 14th-Century artefact is dubious for three reasons:
1. There was no chain-of-custody of the pieces of cloth that were being analysed: no researcher saw them actually being cut from the shroud; they were handed over in sealed capsules by Vatican officials! The above book gives ample evidence that the samples of cloth could not have come from the same source.
2. It is quite out of the question that anyone at that time (or even in 2007!) could possibly have produced an anatomically-perfect picture of a human body in negative!. The image was always considered to be weird and it wasn't until it was photographed in the late 19th century that the negative showed a positive image. No-one had ever said before that "Oh well, of course it looks odd. It's negative isn't it?" because such a concept didn't exist.
3. The marks forming the image are changes in the colour of the cloth itself, with no trace of pigments, dyes or any other chemicals.
I don't know how that image came about and no-one else has yet given a satisfactory explanation. If they had then I, as the most rational person on this planet after Richard Dawkins, would have grabbed at it gratefully...
To me the thing is a complete mystery, viz:
Even if it is the shroud of a crucified person there is no reason to believe that that person was Jesus: the gospels have too little historical basis for us to trust any of their details, especially about the crucifixion. Besides, the Romans crucified countless thousands of people.
The laboratory research of a few years ago which purported to show that it is a 14th-Century artefact is dubious for three reasons:
1. There was no chain-of-custody of the pieces of cloth that were being analysed: no researcher saw them actually being cut from the shroud; they were handed over in sealed capsules by Vatican officials! The above book gives ample evidence that the samples of cloth could not have come from the same source.
2. It is quite out of the question that anyone at that time (or even in 2007!) could possibly have produced an anatomically-perfect picture of a human body in negative!. The image was always considered to be weird and it wasn't until it was photographed in the late 19th century that the negative showed a positive image. No-one had ever said before that "Oh well, of course it looks odd. It's negative isn't it?" because such a concept didn't exist.
3. The marks forming the image are changes in the colour of the cloth itself, with no trace of pigments, dyes or any other chemicals.
I don't know how that image came about and no-one else has yet given a satisfactory explanation. If they had then I, as the most rational person on this planet after Richard Dawkins, would have grabbed at it gratefully...
Good evening Luna, If it was proven not to be Jesus, I don't know if believers would accept it. My guess would be probably not since for them, like everything else, it would still be a matter of faith. I can't see how we could ever prove it is an image of Jesus. There are other relics in existence which are purported to carry samples of the blood and sweat of Jesus, but unless the shroud contains DNA that can be matched with DNA from other relics, then there could be no proof - and even if two samples of DNA did match, we could not conclude with any certainty that the image on the shroud is that of Jesus. It could be anyone - although in all honesty it would be a bit of a coincidence to say the least - so perhaps it would change people's views.
Good evening Chakka, I agree with everything you've said, but I wasn't aware of the problem with the cloth samples, or that they were handed over in sealed containers - and that is interesting. What a pity the church won't hand over the whole thing to science for honest investigation.
I can understand that perhaps bodily fluids, the onset of decomposition, or the effects of oils and lotions may have produced a chemical reaction in the fibres, but there's no evidence of that - and apart from that it's the negative image that intrigues me most. I've read various theories, one that the image was produced by Leonardo da Vinci (doesn't he always crop up?!) using an early form of 'pinhole' photography, and that the face on the cloth is his own, but I've also read that spores of certain plants indiginous to the middle east in the first century were found in the cloth, and that the weaving technique used was identical to that used at that time.
Thank you for the book title - I'll get it. This certainly is a mystery - one to baffle even Sherlock Holmes!
Good evening Chakka, I agree with everything you've said, but I wasn't aware of the problem with the cloth samples, or that they were handed over in sealed containers - and that is interesting. What a pity the church won't hand over the whole thing to science for honest investigation.
I can understand that perhaps bodily fluids, the onset of decomposition, or the effects of oils and lotions may have produced a chemical reaction in the fibres, but there's no evidence of that - and apart from that it's the negative image that intrigues me most. I've read various theories, one that the image was produced by Leonardo da Vinci (doesn't he always crop up?!) using an early form of 'pinhole' photography, and that the face on the cloth is his own, but I've also read that spores of certain plants indiginous to the middle east in the first century were found in the cloth, and that the weaving technique used was identical to that used at that time.
Thank you for the book title - I'll get it. This certainly is a mystery - one to baffle even Sherlock Holmes!
Radiocarbon dating proves the Shroud of Turin to be 600 to 700 years old so it couldn't possibly be the burial shroud of Jesus. If any DNA samples were present on the shroud they could be compared to Joseph's DNA. Any suggestion of a paternal link would prove the shroud to be a fake. We always seem to underestimate the ability and ingenuity of medieval forgers.
Teddio, surely you're not suggesting that samples of Joseph's DNA are available to science?
A paternal connection wouldn't prove the shroud a fake, it would simply prove that the person whose image we see on the shroud was the son of Joseph rather than the son of god.
If you think we underestimate the ability of medieval forgers, have you any ideas or suggestions which might explain the methods used to produce the image; of how, in the days before photography, they conceived the idea of producing the image as a negative, and why they felt it necessary to produce the image as such?
A paternal connection wouldn't prove the shroud a fake, it would simply prove that the person whose image we see on the shroud was the son of Joseph rather than the son of god.
If you think we underestimate the ability of medieval forgers, have you any ideas or suggestions which might explain the methods used to produce the image; of how, in the days before photography, they conceived the idea of producing the image as a negative, and why they felt it necessary to produce the image as such?
Teddio, with reference to carbon dating, you might find this of interest.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4210369.st m
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4210369.st m
I've always felt that should the vatican see fit to allow the scientists to get their anxious little hands on the shroud and it is proven to be 'no hoax', there will still be left unanswerable questions.
The main one being that 'how' could it ever be proven to be the funereal wrapping of Jesus ? We have been told (especially since Dan Brown and his damn book) that there are no direct descendents as he never married nor had children. If we 'do a jump to the left' and follow a sibling line, there is no guarantee of an unbroken link back through the unwritten records......
I prefer to be fascinated by the shroud itself, not what it may represent.,
The main one being that 'how' could it ever be proven to be the funereal wrapping of Jesus ? We have been told (especially since Dan Brown and his damn book) that there are no direct descendents as he never married nor had children. If we 'do a jump to the left' and follow a sibling line, there is no guarantee of an unbroken link back through the unwritten records......
I prefer to be fascinated by the shroud itself, not what it may represent.,
To digress a little - I have read about some innacuracies using C14 and radiometric dating.
They appear to lack a benchmark, and are not entirely free of ingress and egress of essential materials. Now that's not putting it scientifically of course, not being a scientist, but could somebody with a scientific background comment on this?
They appear to lack a benchmark, and are not entirely free of ingress and egress of essential materials. Now that's not putting it scientifically of course, not being a scientist, but could somebody with a scientific background comment on this?
But Teddio, radiocarbon dating is meaningless unless you know that you are testing the right material. The book I mention shows that, due to the lack of a 100% chain-of-custody, none of the testers could be sure of this. The Jesus question is a religious sideline; the real question is: how could anyone produce perfect negative pictures in the 14th century?
By the way, the image is discernable only from some feet away. Leonardo must have had a long brush!
By the way, the image is discernable only from some feet away. Leonardo must have had a long brush!
The fundamental principal of Radio Carbon dating is that there is a fairly fixed ratio of 2 types of carbon in the air. One decays radioactively the other does not.
Every living creature absorbs carbon in this same ratio but when they die that ratio changes as the radioactive carbon starts to decay at a fixed rate.
Provided that you're within certain date ranges, ie that the item has died within a few tens of thousands of years the principle is sound and has been used tens of thousands of times and corroberated against many other dating methods.
It gets iffy if you're trying to date really ancient remains but for objects like the Turin shroud it's pretty reliable.
Note that 3 seperate expert institutions did a carbon date on the shroud and all independently agreed
Problems creep in with issue of contamination and it was unfortunate that an edge piece was selected that was likely to have been handled.
However you have to ask yourself - is it a coincidence that the date found was during a period where trading in valuable religous relics was widespread?
As to the ascertation that it was beyond the skills of people at that time - I'd point out that some years ago a TV company challenged 3 Glass specialists to replicate the Portland Vase (from the time of Augustus) Only one managed to create a suitable blank and they broke it during cutting
Every living creature absorbs carbon in this same ratio but when they die that ratio changes as the radioactive carbon starts to decay at a fixed rate.
Provided that you're within certain date ranges, ie that the item has died within a few tens of thousands of years the principle is sound and has been used tens of thousands of times and corroberated against many other dating methods.
It gets iffy if you're trying to date really ancient remains but for objects like the Turin shroud it's pretty reliable.
Note that 3 seperate expert institutions did a carbon date on the shroud and all independently agreed
Problems creep in with issue of contamination and it was unfortunate that an edge piece was selected that was likely to have been handled.
However you have to ask yourself - is it a coincidence that the date found was during a period where trading in valuable religous relics was widespread?
As to the ascertation that it was beyond the skills of people at that time - I'd point out that some years ago a TV company challenged 3 Glass specialists to replicate the Portland Vase (from the time of Augustus) Only one managed to create a suitable blank and they broke it during cutting
It's not like you, jake-the-peg, to miss or evade the point. The things you say about carbon-dating, and the agreement between all three testers, are fine, but irrelevant if the cloth being tested did not come from the shroud; and there is no proof that it did. The book I mentioned has a photograph of the three sealed cylinders as given to the testers by Vatican officials. There is then an enormous amount of detail, including photographs, which throws doubt on the provenance of the tested cloth.
But the important thing is the idea that the image is an artefact. It's no use quoting mechanical things like vases. What needs to be explained is:
How was the image produced, there being no trace of pigments of any sort?
How was it produced in negative, an achievement which no artist or scientist has managed to duplicate since - even though we know what a negative is, knowledge that no-one in history would have had?
It's a pity that the subject has been bound about with religious nonsense. It's a true scientific mystery, nothing else.
But the important thing is the idea that the image is an artefact. It's no use quoting mechanical things like vases. What needs to be explained is:
How was the image produced, there being no trace of pigments of any sort?
How was it produced in negative, an achievement which no artist or scientist has managed to duplicate since - even though we know what a negative is, knowledge that no-one in history would have had?
It's a pity that the subject has been bound about with religious nonsense. It's a true scientific mystery, nothing else.
