http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin I didn't expect World News to provide any sort of science behind this, so I had to come here.
It is a actual burial shroud used long after Jesus was supposed to be here. It has already been debunked by analysis through scientific means many years ago. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...6YH4CQ&usg=AFQjCNEE8lBmWZAfpTfDN6LDKH3dohtQcg http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...6YH4CQ&usg=AFQjCNGa4-GppZT8-uJ51AH3oycyqRRpvw
Going on show to the public tomorrow for the first time. Expect some news coverage - although expect the coverage to be shallow and sensational.
The guy who *has a book coming out* says the sample that dated it to medieval times took a sample from a piece that was part of a reconstruction, not the original. xD Does this hold up? (doubt it, I just would like it debunked)
Even if it can be dated to the first century, so what? Authentic, in this case, means actual physical contact with the Jesus of the Bible, and I don't see how that could ever be established.
IT IS FAKE! HERE IS WHY.. If you cover your artwork/painting (as is still common today when you want no peekers) with a blanket the inks will oxidize the image onto the blanket in this exact fashion. HERE IS PROOF. The Shroud of Turin has the subject lying down with his hands crossed comfortably over his genital area. This might seem easy for an Orangatang or other long armed Ape species, but humans have much shorter arms. Try this experiment. Lie down on your bed and try to cover your genitals the way it is portrayed in the painting using your hands. You will find it is not a very natural position as portrayed. So this is Proof that the shroud of Turin is fake. Try to find anyone who can cover their genitals in a death pose, and you will find this is not human design. If you also use common sense then you might also realize that covering of the genital area seems very convenient as well. So there you have it. Scientific proof on how to fake a Shroud of Turin, and scientific proof that our bodies are not freaks like the dude in this shroud painting. Now I have proved it is fake so let's move on.
Very nice refutation! I hate World News so much. So much sensationalism. They also said "most scholars agree that Jesus was real" and went on to cite Josephus and others. Is this true? I mean, I have no quarrels if it is true (doesn't mean he was the Son of God) but, I would just like confirmation.
Very nice refutation except for one major flaw. It is very clear from the image that the image of the man of the shroud had his knees slightly bent and his head slightly tilted forward. This is the information you conveniently forgot to research which all shroud researchers know, even skeptics who have researched the shroud fully. Now with your knees slightly bent and your head tilted forward lay on your bed and try to place your hands on your genitals and you will see that they cover the genitals perfectly. It seems that everyone here wants the shroud of turin to be a fake so badly they will abandon the honest research and scientific method they claim to love so bad that they could debunk it with ignorance and then move forward. I won't be here much but this post is just ridiculous and the fact that none of the science lovers here bothered to debunk tells me that with the shroud of turin,you guys are only interested in pseudo evidence that will seem to debunk it. One guy buries his head in the sand and everyone else cheers him on. Gotta love the honest scientific enquiry here Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Laterz
The problem with this is the eyes on the shroud are higher than normal, they are around 66% up the face of Jesus instead of the more normal 50% of humans. In paintings, this is normal, even da Vinci's Vitruvian Man has these proportions. The only way to get this effect with a real person is to have them with their held backwards, not forward. So your inventive excuse does not work. But if you want seriously want to talk science, we could discuss the technically sound c14 paper versus Roger's rather dubious paper. You can get them here: https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm and http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF
It was a mystery before scientific analysis, and it remains a mystery. It is either 1. A miracle 2. An image formed by radiation, light , heat etc. 3. A photograph 4. An image formed by chemicals, paints, dyes, other fluids. 5. Something else, we don't know what. There are scientific problems with all the options, except the first, which is not within the realms of science to confirm, and the last. In my opinion it is either number 1 or number 5.
Or number 6 A shroud placed over a ancient basketball player whose arms are very long to reach his genitals and was buried with it covering him. When it was found later on it is now being passed around to make money from from those stupid enough to believe it.
It's a genuine example of a medieval era religious forgery. They might have used some interesting techniques similar to the photography of today.
Photographs taken in the UV area of the spectrum indicate that the image is similar to the scorch marks from the 1532 fire, suggesting heat possibly played a part. Drawings of the shroud through the ages also suggest that a loin cloth was painted on, and that some of the blood stains may have been added later. From the evidence I have looked at, I would say it's a mixture of 2 and 4. Of course, the problem is that it has been in a fire, boiled in oil and water, and is several hundred years old, as well as possible updates, all adding to the mystery.
I'd like to see the Vatican release a few more samples. They only released milligrams of material in the 1980s. They weren't much use because they came from a part of the shroud that had been repaired. If it is medieval I would suspect that it was made by either Durer or Leonardo. If you are looking for someone capable of inventing photography and then dropping it for some other project it would be Leonardo. Leonardo invented the helicopter, but never bothered to try to make one. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If it dates from before medieval times, the idea that it is a fake becomes more difficult to accept. In that case it is, I suppose, either an artefact accidentally made by some natural process, and subsequently augmented, or a miracle. If both the blood and the cloth date back to the first century AD, which is something I wouldn't expect, I would go with miracle.
It might not be true photography, just the use of some photosensitive chemicals. No lenses were likely involved.
