Scientist re-creates Turin Shroud to show it's fake

cnn.com ^ | 3:41 p.m. EDT, Wed October 7, 2009 | Richard Allen Greene

[Nikas777]

Scientist re-creates Turin Shroud to show it's fake

updated 3:41 p.m. EDT, Wed October 7, 2009

By Richard Allen Greene CNN

(CNN) -- An Italian scientist says he has reproduced one of the world's most famous Catholic relics, the Shroud of Turin, to support his belief it is a medieval fake, not the cloth Jesus was buried in.

Luigi Garlaschelli created a copy of the shroud by wrapping a specially woven cloth over one of his students, painting it with pigment, baking it in an oven (which he called a "shroud machine") for several hours, then washing it.

His result looks like the cloth that many Christians through the centuries have believed is the actual burial shroud of Jesus, he told CNN.

"What you have now is a very fuzzy, dusty and weak image," he said. "Then for the sake of completeness I have added the bloodstains, the burns, the scorching because there was a fire in 1532."

[Nikas777]

The Shroud maybe a copy of an actual relic - the Mandylion that the Greeks would re-create and sell to Latin Crusaders. There was a brisk trade in relic copies - not forgery - but copies - of actual relics in that era. People forget that there are many Shrouds out there - though this one is most authentic looking and the others look man made. They were sold as reproductions but were venerated as relics regardless. Over time they became a substitute for the actual relic itself as time went on and people forgot the origins (or lied about it to sell as the item).

If the Shroud is a man made image it is of high quality work and a technology that was not found in the West. I think exposure to light through painted glass is how it was done - and the Byzantines had the craftsmen and technology for such a thing.

[randog]

That's great. Now perhaps we can talk about the faking of Global Warming^® data. No? Can't question that religion? The "science is settled"?

[Kandy]

This phony application of “science” has already been ruled out:

http://www.shroud.com/latebrak.htm

[john in springfield]

Aside from the fact that this person has NOT duplicated the properties of the image on the Shroud, the claims being made are not logically valid.

By this logic, if and when human being succeed in creating life, that will PROVE that there is a God.

[Sacajaweau]

Interesting that he “baked” it since I believe it was involved in a fire at one time.

[heartwood]

There’s a logical fallacy here - to create an image resembling that on the Shroud of Turin using technology available in medieval times does not prove that the Shroud is not the shroud of Jesus.

It only shows that the Shroud COULD be a medieval creation, IF the new image duplicates the Shroud in sufficiently many signficant aspects. There has not been enough evidence presented or independent review to determine that.

If they do demonstrate the possibility of a medieval creation, then they have increased the probability that a rational mind will assign to that, at the expense of the probability that it is the shroud of Jesus, without disproving the latter.

[jtal]

ha ha “shroud machine” he so funny

[Adder]

The more people try to disprove the Shroud, the more real it looks.

This guys attempt looks to be laughable in light of the science performed on the Shroud over the years.

[La Lydia]

How did these re-creators get the 1st century pollen embedded in it? I have read a lot about the scientific examination of the shroud of Turin and this has to be the weakest debunking I have ever heard. But then again, it’s CNN.

[Argus]

It’s already been determined that the Shroud is not a painted image. And the fact that it’s a photographic negative would appear to rule out delliberate forgery, since nobody in the Middle Ages knew anything about photography.

Other than that, great job.

[Cacique]

btt

[the long march]

Or this guy is on a fool’s errand. Because A can do B does not provide proof of anything. Note well that he used an oven ( of which he gives us no details for temp and time —— a critical thing for evaluating if some previous person could have faked this). He has not put it through the testing that has produced very interesting results ( including 3-d imaging, pollen studies, etc).

All hes has done is put an image on cloth. Proves NADA

[pgkdan]

I don’t anywhere in the article where this new image is a photographic negative. No matter what his pigmented image looks like if it’s not a negative he hasn’t shown us anything.

[the long march]

Exactly

[ontap]

In the end few people will be persuaded or dissuaded.

[Nikas777]

Not a photographic negative. But a sun etching through sun bleaching. You need a pane of glass the whole length of the body and an outline painted to prevent the sun bleaching in some areas and the sun from impacting in other areas. The expensive part is the length of pane glass that is the length of the body.

[The Great RJ]

Why would a 13th century forger of relics go to the time and trouble to make a shroud that challenges 21st century technologies when a crude painted fake would have sufficed? I am particularly intrigued by the unique anatomic features of the image on the Turin Shroud. Again these details would have been unknown in the 13th century and would have been contrary to popular images of the Crucifixion at the time.

[Nikas777]

The why is for the money and the image was not painted onto cloth but rather sun bleached?

[Argus]

Front and back on the same piece of cloth? How does that happen?

[Nikas777]

From my posting:
‘Teacher Has Theory on the Shroud of Turin’ @ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2357726/posts

As the Shroud is roughly fourteen feet in length, two pieces of glass would be necessary, both at least six feet long. The image of the front of the man would be produced beneath one and the back of the man beneath the other.

When Dr. Antonio Lombatti, Fellow Researcher in Medieval Church History at the Deputazione di Storia Patria in Parma, Italy was recently asked about the availability of glass large enough to produce the Shroud, he responded, “Of course a medieval artist could have enough glass to produce that relic.” He pointed out that six foot painted glass windows were not uncommon, and also mentioned that the length discrepancy between the front and back images of the man in the Shroud (1-2 inches) suggests two different phases of production.