Turin Shroud may be genuine after all

UPI via The Washington Times ^ | 10/9/2002 | Uwe Siemon-Netto

[SteveH]

GURAT, France, Sept. 24 (UPI) -- The Turin Shroud bearing the features of a crucified man may well be the cloth that enveloped the body of Christ, a renowned textile historian told United Press International Tuesday.

Disputing inconclusive carbon-dating tests suggesting the shroud hailed from medieval times, Swiss specialist Mechthild Flury-Lemberg said it could be almost 2,000 years old.

[RightOnline]

You didn't read my original reply, then. Go back and re-read. No one "called into question the entire concept of radiocarbon dating", as you put it. That wasn't the point. You pulled that out of the air or some body orifice.

....but since you brought it up.....

Did you know that when the sample (again, taken from the ONE spot on the Shroud that the team insisted should be avoided? curious as to why?) was tested that there were only about 11 facilities in the world capable of radiocarbon dating? Did you also realize that there were ZERO standards among these labs/test facilities? Zip.....nada.......zilch? Do you not agree that calibration to agreed-upon standards would be a pretty good idea (ahem)?

Are you also familiar with the factors that determine results from radiocarbon dating?

It isn't that it "doesn't work". It also isn't bloody magic, either.

[PleaseNoMore]

Also, concerning His appearance, Isaiah tells us that there was nothing "comely" about Him. I believe that when my Saviour walked this earth He did not "set himself apart" physically meaning that He wasn't "angelically" handsome. He was a hard working man ( carpentry in those days would be nothing like it is now as it often required masonry work as well ) and had to have a rough exterior ( callouses on the hands, leathery skin from working in the elements etc ). He had to be a muscular individual with evidence of manual labor on His body. I believe that there was nothing extraordinary about His appearance that drew man to Him. The Spirit of God in Him however, is that which drew men to Him and revealed His Lordship to them.

We are also told that His crucifixion was such that his visage was not that of a man. My, what He did for us on that cross.

[RightOnline]

Let me be even more blunt. I've offered to connect you with the (physicist) leader of the original STURP team. If you really gave a damn about this issue (as opposed to just sitting on your high horse and throwing stones.....which continually miss, by the way), you'd jump at the chance. You haven't.

I've also asked you to lay your credentials on the table. I know Tom D'Muhala's. I know the kind of man he is, I know his work, and I know the kind of scientist he is. He's just ONE member of this extended team. Let's see what you've got that seemingly allows you to look down your nose at such people.

Be skeptical.......that's fine; it's expected. However, a scientist is supposed to be open-minded and willing to investigate applying the scientific method. At least show a willingness to research a bit.

If you DON'T give a damn about the issue in the first place, then you should avoid such threads.

[Taliesan]

If we posit that the contaminants date to the fire of 1532, which the Shroud survived, the contaminants must outweigh the original Shroud by a factor of almost four and a half.

In the sample.

[libertysdaughter]

Amen. Faith is most important, but once in awhile it doesn't hurt to have one's faith backed-up with physical evidence ie archeology, The Shroud of Turin, Noah's Ark, etc. Such findings help to shut up the naysayers.

[Physicist]

taken from the ONE spot on the Shroud that the team insisted should be avoided? curious as to why?

You're making an accusation of fraud.

[Physicist]

as opposed to just sitting on your high horse and throwing stones.....which continually miss, by the way

The one "stone" I've thrown is to debunk the pervasive claims of contamination. If it missed, quantitatively show me how.

[RightOnline]

"Fraud"? How about a bum test? Know the difference? Think anyone gave a damn about looking into such things when the so-called "results" of carbon dating were released?

As to insisting on focusing on "contamination".........which I didn't bring up, by the way.........why don't you respond to my previous reply?

[Physicist]

"Fraud"? How about a bum test? Know the difference?

I do. But your "wonder why" comment obviously indicates the former.

As to insisting on focusing on "contamination".........which I didn't bring up, by the way.........

No, but that was the issue I was discussing when you jumped down my throat.

why don't you respond to my previous reply?

Which one?

[hosepipe]

Holy Moldy, not the shroud again.....
Seems like ever coupla years this thing pops up again..
Me, being the greatest thing since popcorn, at least my dog thinks so.
Wonder if a coupla thousand years from now, there will be a controvery over my flip-flops...Hmmmm.

Who cares!?....
(hand raised)OOooo,Ooo,ooo,ooo,OOOo,OOO(persona-Horshack)

[Skooz]

The modern idea of what Jesus looked like when he walked the earth began with the great German painter Albrecht Drurer (or Durer). He painted a picture of Christ and, since no one knew what Jesus looked like, decided to use his own face. Here is his self portrait:

[RightOnline]

"I do. But your "wonder why" comment obviously indicates the former."

......sigh............no, it had to do with their contention that that section was not part of the original Shroud.

"No, but that was the issue I was discussing when you jumped down my throat."

Maybe.......just maybe.........you deserved it.

"Which one?"

#103

[Physicist]

Maybe.......just maybe.........you deserved it.

I debunked a demonstrably incorrect argument. Clearly I was out of line. :-/

[Physicist]

. If you really gave a damn about this issue (as opposed to just sitting on your high horse and throwing stones.....which continually miss, by the way), you'd jump at the chance. You haven't.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm "out to get the Shroud". I'm not. I don't have the hyper-emotional investment in the issue that you have. Believe whatever you want. But when it comes to a quantitative issue, I'm going to keep it honest.

Be skeptical.......that's fine; it's expected. However, a scientist is supposed to be open-minded and willing to investigate applying the scientific method. At least show a willingness to research a bit.

You know it doesn't work that way. You can't say, "your argument is wrong, and if you go elsewhere contact this expert he'll show you why," and then accuse me of laziness for not taking the fight elsewhere against your champion. (That's even assuming it's a fight I'm waging, which it isn't.) The argument, if any, is occurring here. Either defend your own ideas or get your expert to come here to defend them.

If you DON'T give a damn about the issue in the first place, then you should avoid such threads.

I can't say that I've been criticized for my dispassion before.

[polemikos]

On the Net:

Photo Index: http://www.sindone.org/it/scient/restauro_gallery.htm
Hi-Res Full Length:http://www.sindone.org/restauro/hires/sindone_recto.jpg
Hi-Res Face: http://www.sindone.org/restauro/hires/il_volto.jpg

Video footage: http://www.sindone.org/it/scient/restauro_filmati.htm

News: http://www.shroud.com/index.htm
Overview of recent changes: Photo Overview

Research Overview: http://www.shroudstory.com/index.htm
Perhaps the most interesting item on the ShroudStory site:
ESSAY: The Resurrection Problem and the Shroud of Turin
which has research details, especially:
The most intriguing characteristic
A picture of a million words
How were the images formed?

http://www.crc-internet.org/shroud.htm
(Note: the site is schismatic, but the article is interesting).

One of the most noteworthy papers presented at the "Sindone 2000" Orvieto Worldwide Conference in August 2000, was "Evidence for the Skewing of the C-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin Due to Repairs" by Joseph Marino and M. Sue Benford. It presented evidence that the corner of the Shroud where the C-14 samples were taken from in 1988 contained spurious fibers from a medieval reweaving, resulting in an inaccurate date.

[ZULU]

"Does not normal Corbon dating sampling take off the surface material before doing a dating - such as taking material from the inside of a tooth, or inside a skull, or from the center of a piece of wood?"

At the time the last carbon 14 sampling was done on the Shroud, the existence of bioplastic was unknown and the contamination produced by it not compensated for.

There are now techniques availble which can do this.

[aruanan]

There was a lot of microbial plaque on the cloth from over the centuries. This would tend to skew the C14 date toward the present.

[aruanan]

Some theologians believe this may have occurred as Christ's body exited the shroud during his resurrection. Flury-Lemberg was quick to point out, though, this could never be scientifically proven. The same applied to the question if the tortured and crucified man buried in the shroud was Jesus.

Most important things in life cannot be scientifically proven. Besides, "scientific proof" is not synonymous with "conclusive proof".

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!