Posted on 05/08/2010 4:33:54 AM PDT by NYer
.- Professor Paolo Di Lazzaro, who is head of a group of researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Development in Italy, noted this week that the latest discoveries on the Shroud of Turin “are not in contradiction with the theory of the Resurrection” of Christ.
In an interview with Europa Press, Di Lazzaro explained the results of their study, which lasted four years and focused on how the image came to appear on the cloth. According to tradition, the shroud was used to wrap the body of Jesus after the crucifixion.
Di Lazzaro said that scientists have not been able to reproduce an image, similar to the one on the shroud, with any kind of contact technique. While from far away, differences in the replications may appear unnoticeable, under a microscope they appear drastically different, he added.
The peculiarity of the original image lies in the “depth of coloration,” which on Shroud does not go beyond the first layer of strands in the fabric, Di Lazzaro said. Upon observation, his team came to the conclusion that “the image on the Shroud is similar to those some textile manufactures create through the use of laser.”
After years of experimentation, for the first time the team was able to color the outermost strands of a fabric similarly to how the image is present on the Shroud by using “extremely brief but intense ultraviolet light impulses emitted by a special laser.”
Even so, the researchers were only able to reproduce a small portion of the Shroud, as “in order to color the entire image you would need 14,000 lasers, something which for now is impossible,” he said.
Nevertheless, Di Lazzaro said the discovery at least points to a possible physical mechanism that may have resulted in the creation of the image. This mechanism “does not contradict the religious theory of the miracle or the resurrection,” he said, as it could have been the cause of the release of energy that created the image, although “this is an area outside our competence as scientists.”
Recently, Di Lazzaro organized a seminar in Frascati, Italy, during which 48 experts from around the world gathered together to discuss images called Acheiropoietos, that is, “not made by hands.” They also examined the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Manopello Veil, which, according to tradition, is the veil used by Veronica to wipe the face of Jesus.
All significant investigation into how the images might have been formed by some perfectly natural means so far suggests that a simple process is all but impossible. Chemical reactions (or stains) caused by contact with the body would produce a grossly distorted image. Gaseous products from a body or funerary spices would seem to produce a diffused image lacking in detail. Radiant energy such as bodily heat lacks essential directional qualities.
Ping!
...wow.
http://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm
One clincher in the recent series about the face of Jesus and the shroud- the matching of the shroud to the Sudarium of Oviedo, which I had never heard about
ping
There was a time past when many towns had their own relics and “shrouds” . It was a status symbol and it gave small towns local pride. Many,many if these are of course fakes.
this comment means you consider the Sudarium of Oveido as fake?
Give one example.
I'm not a Shroud buff, but my recollection is that the modern revival of interest dates from the point in the late 19th or early 20th century when it was being photographed, and the photographer realized that the image appears to be the equivalent of a photographic negative. Pretty neat trick for some guy in a workshop somewhere in northern Europe in the 12th or 13th century. So: how would a medieval forger have achieved this, and many other curious effects, even if accidentally?
I also am not a Shroud buff, but I have a couple of books on it and have followed the press on it in recent years.
I get some satisfaction from the fact that secular researchers have been unable to discredit it and that it defies any “scientific” explanations. It seems almost to be a cosmic taunt telling us that there is more to reality than our feeble science understands.
RE: the 1988 C-14 testing that dates The Shroud to a medieval origin.
Those who claim that the 1988 tests were compromised by bungled “patch-sampling” seem forced to admit that, if the tests results are wrong, and The Shroud is authentic, then it’s held by the technically and scientifically incompetent and isn’t completely safe in their keeping. Third possibility- it’s held by malefactors who know it’s a hoax and intentionally mis-sampled for the 1988 test to keep the controversy alive as long as possible. If this third way turns out to be the truth, then The Shroud still isn’t safe where it currently abides.
So either The Shroud is C-14 medieval, or or authentic and held by nincompoops who couldn’t tell a patch in the cloth from a hole in the ground, or it’s the Turin Cathedral’s hoax and we’re being played for fools. Would that the the rich, hoary, decrepit men-on-robes club that holds the shroud was willing to double down and carefully retest the carbon.
1. You have so little familiarity with the technical issues involved (especially the techniques of patching) that you're able to come up with what appear to be, but aren't, mutually exclusive explanations that lead inevitably to your desired conclusion.
2. You are familiar enough with them but don't want to let something minor like the truth get in the way of your prejudices ("the rich, hoary, decrepit men-on-robes club") and detract from your desired conclusion.
What no one seems to ever bring up is that there has been, for far longer than the middle ages, references to a cloth, in some cases called the "Mandylion" with an image of Christ. Tradition tells us that this is the same one and documents refer to the Knights Templar having kept it for a time. The provenance goes back much farther than the carbon dating. And then the chief carbon dater came to the conclusion that the dating was erroneous.
I'm sticking with the "rich, hoary, decrepit men-on-robes club" (who, incidentally, took a vow of poverty. Material Church "wealth" is in assets held in trust for the inspiration of the faithful) on this one.
“carbon dating was debunked by the very researchers who conducted the tests.”
Quote, link, source?
Um, are you Desdemona? Is she(?) your puppet? Why didn’t you jump in, all “Do my work for me” when blackpacific asked sonic109 for specifics on the churches’ many, many previous false relics and hoaxes? Shoe on the other foot now? And are you ignoring the last sentence of my first post?
Doubledown throwdown, yo. C-14 Retest,
Winner
Takes
All.
Turin Cathedral, once bitten, twice shy, literally hasn’t got the balls to retest.
Also: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/03/21/shroud-turin.html
http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/2009/01/30/tv-alert-unwrapping-the-shroud-new-evidence-to-be-rebroadcast/
I am NO ONE's puppet. Aruanan is a screen name I see here and it seems that we have some common interests and, probably a common faith.
Relic hoaxes have been around for centuries. Knowing that one is really authentic takes a continuous provenance. It's the same way with art. What makes the relics from the Passion different is that they do have a continuous presence in written tradition. The Shroud, the Veil, the Crown of Thorns (currently in Notre Dame in Paris) and the facial cloth in Spain, all have been documented in Europe since the crusades. They were, for all intents and purposes, confiscated. Before that, all were documented in the middle east. Modern science also tells us that the same man's blood is on each of these. I'll have to double check on the Veil, but the other three, yes. I don't need the physical proof that so many seem to think is crucial.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.