(Photo: An archive negative image of the Shroud of Turin (L) next to one created by Luigi Garlaschelli and released in Pavia, Italy, on 5 Oct 2009/Turin Diocese (L) and Luigi Garlaschelli (R)/Turin Diocese (L) and Luigi Garlaschelli)
Italian scientist Luigi Garlaschelli tells me he has been getting lots of hate mail as well as emails of support since our Oct 5 story that he had reproduced the Shroud of Turin with material available in the Middle Ages, a feat that he says proves definitively that the linen some Christians revere as Jesus Christ’s burial cloth is a medieval fake.
Given the controversy that has surrounded the Shroud, particularly since the 1988 carbon dating tests, this was hardly a surprise. One of Christianity’s most disputed relics, it is locked away at Turin Cathedral in Italy and rarely exhibited. It was last on display in 2000 and is due to be shown again next year. The Catholic Church does not claim the Shroud is authentic nor that it is a matter of faith, but says it should be a powerful reminder of Christ’s passion.
Until now, scientists have been at a loss to explain how the eery image like a photographic negative of a crucified man was left on the cloth. Garlaschelli, a professor of organic chemistry at the University of Pavia, will present his findings at a conference in northern Italy this weekend.
(Photo: An archive negative image of the Shroud of Turin (L) in full length next to one created by Luigi Garlaschelli and released in Pavia, Italy, on 5 Oct 2009/Turin Diocese (L) and Luigi Garlaschelli (R)
No one expects this to be the last we hear of the Shroud. As Garlaschelli told me in our telephone interview, those who fervently believe the Shroud is real will continue to do so. Our main news website, www.reuters.com, gave a rough gauge of international interest in the Shroud in its “Most Popular” rankings. Over 24 hours after we ran the news, it was still the third most popular story out there, ahead of a host of important economic stories and the latest twists in the David Letterman sex scandal. That says something about how the Shroud still arouses passions — whether it is 2,000 years old or only 700.
What is your feeling on the Shroud and the controversy that has surrounded it. Does it make a difference to one’s faith if it is real or not?
Trackback
58 comments so far
Previous | 3 | 2 | 1 | Next
From 4 BCE to 30 AD no historical contemporary evidence that Jesus ever existed. No writings, no eye witness accounts on parchment or tablets, no wall carvings, no works of carpentry, no physical description, no generational hand me down information whatsoever, no coins depicting him. To christians jesus is suppose to be the greatest man that ever lived and thousands were suppose to have witnessed his many miracles including his family and the 12 apostles yet at the time they didn’t think he was important enough to write things down about him as was very common back then. Lots of information written at the time about King Herod yet nothing about him slaughtering an entire city of male infants under 2. Libraries full of information about Pontius Pilate personal writings and offical governor documents of Judea yet not one word about a divine man named jesus who was crucified.
According to christians The persecution of jesus in jersusalem was such a big deal that Pontius Pilate and the hig priest joseph caiaphas not only knew about it but were part of it according to the scriptures. Matt 21:15-23, 26:3 Luke 19:47 23:13 yet nothing in any history documents indicate that this event ever happened.
The 4 gospels never once give a description of this man Jesus yet the catholic church still gives the OK to make millions $$ from statues and pictures showing a man that looks like a man from western cultures even though he was suppose to be from the middle east. Catholics don’t want jesus to look jewish or midle eastern even though thats what he would have been if he existed.
Mystery around the shroud will carry on for centuries by those still clinging to this belief. To me this mytical jesus is BUSTED!
- Posted by chartsMcCrone’s conclusions have been disproved numerous times over the last 25+ years. No one has yet to publish any peer-reviewed article to collaborate his “theory” based on tiny specks taken from the shroud with tape. The Vineland Map debacle shows that he is far from a credible source for which to throw away hundreds of other published papers that speak to a different conclusion (the shroud was *not* painted). Yet skeptics continually trot him out because he’s all they really have to base this flawed theory on. One need only view some of the microscopy of the shroud to see that it clearly could not have been painted (the image is too superficial, shows no capillary action, etc) let alone other characteristics that point to some other means of image formation…most likely theory being amine reactions with the starch left by the linen preparation. The age of the shroud is another matter, separate from how the image formed, but McCrone’s conclusions have been disproved by more than just Heller and Adler. They were just the first to do it (and all their conclusions have long since been validated).
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf
As for Rogers, his conclusions as well were independently confirmed. He, and many of us that are interested in shroud science was hoping for a repeat (with proper sampling) C14 test to be done. Perhaps the Vatican in the future will agree. It’s hard to see why they would. Certainly to the religious, cutting pieces off it is tantamount to desecration. And should the shroud test to be near first century, the skeptics will all just claim the test was faked somehow, they switched samples, something along those lines. They certainly would never accept the results, just as they haven’t accepted the mountain of data that STURP has produced.
- Posted by Mary JoYeah right you know is baloney when they say it is a cheap copy done over only a couple of weeks while at the same time they don’t disclose how much funding he had and how long he had to work on it. Not to mention it does not look that much like the showed in overall quality- which is probably why they are trying to down play their efforts. Bottom line… Not a strong copy.
- Posted by boon“Wikipedia- Walter McCrone”
In 1977, a team of scientists selected by the Holy Shroud Guild developed a program of tests that they proposed to conduct on the Shroud. The Archbishop of Turin granted permission.
The STURP scientists conducted their testing over five days in 1978. McCrone, upon analyzing the samples he had, concluded that the red stains that had been pointed to as blood were actually pigment—specifically, red ochre and vermilion tempera paint.
Two later additions to the STURP team, John Heller and Alan Adler, published their own peer-reviewed analysis concluding that the stains were blood. (Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler, “Blood on the Shroud of Turin”, Applied Optics, 19:2742-4, 1980; Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler, “A Chemical Investigation on the Shroud of Turin”, Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal 81-103, 1981)
According to Shroud skeptic Joe Nickell, neither Heller nor Adler was a forensic serologist or a pigment expert.
Nickell adds that, “at the 1983 conference of the International Association for Identification, forensic analyst John E Fischer explained how results similar to theirs could be obtained from tempera paint.”
- Posted by OhmanMany excuses vetted by creationists have been been debunked over the years.
In one case, a documentary attributed a CO2 reaction theory to a Dr. Ramsey, a scientist who had never even heard the theory before. Dr. Ramsey not only dismissed the link to him as the theories creator, but went on to disprove the theory itself.
Another similar theory was proposed by Dr Kouznetsov. It was later shown that he had not only never done the experiments he had claimed, but he was arrested for accepting a bribe to manufature scientific evidence as to the shroud’s legitimacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon _14_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin#The_19 85_rift_between_S.Tu.R.P._and_the_candid ate_labs
The scientific community generally accept that the radiocarbon dating was accurate.
A single reference to Ray Rogers does not overturn radiocarbon dating, chemistry, pigment analysis and years of scientific inquiry.
It is true that his post-death article was published, but there is serious misgivings about his findings.
-The vatican has denied allowing him to do any testing on the shroud, or giving him any samples.
-His ‘home experiments’ were not subject to any independent quality control, assuming that they happened at all.
-He reached a conclusion on the shroud’s age which was not based on any data in his findings.
-Textile and pigment experts (some admitted creationists) have since claimed that his assertions as to the different compounds in the shroud samples compared to are incorrect.
-Several of his references either do not actually support his claims, or were based on the conclusions of others who were not experts in the relevent scientific fields.
-There are concerns that his article was not properly peer reviewed, and was submitted into a journal it was not eligable to be included in.
You are free to read:
http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shrou d/articles/rogers-ta-response.htm
Other references can certainly be found, but few consider the issue worth discussing in detail.
Even if Ray Rogers research on the was somehow credible, it does not in itself validate the radiocarbon dating.
For the test to be dismissed, an ‘accurate’ sample must be provided. The vatican has refused to provide this sample. And while we can only guess at the vaticans motives for failing to do so, the radiocarbon tests must be considered definitive until proven otherwise.
And even if his research was credible, and a sample was provided, and the age turned out to be 2000 years, this STILL doesn’t prove anything other then it’s age.
While proving the shroud is not 2000 years old certainly proves it is not legitimate.
- Posted by Noah IdeaNoah - your posting is full of completely inaccurate information. Let’s dissect this.
“No scientist has any issue with the carbon dating. And according to this, the shroud was a fake.” Correct on the first part. However, all the dating tells us is that date of the samples. From that we have to decide if we can infer anything about the shroud proper. Sampling has long been an issue with C14 dating, and the shroud is far from the only antiquity to be incorrectly dated as a result.
“People have argued various reasons for why the dating was flawed, but none of these arguments are scientific or have been disproven.” Totally false. Ray Rogers published his findings regarding that invalid sampling in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. His results were validated by other scientists independently. It’s important to note as well that Dr. Rogers was totally expecting to prove the carbon dating was valid, and had debunked earlier attempts to discredit the C14 dating. His results were a surprise to him and he made quite certain to validate them fully before publishing.
“Multiple samples were tested, using different science teams, at several different times over the decade.” Also not accurate. The samples were all taken from the same area on the edge of the shroud, so essentially the same sample. Here is the quote from the original paper on the radiocarbon dating that clearly states this:
“The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas.”
It was very, very poor sampling and has little validity for proving the age of the entire shroud, unless we can prove definitely that the sample is exactly representative of the shroud proper. All the evidence indicates this is not the case.
“There is no actual evidence that the tested samples were any different to the rest of the shroud.” There is CONSIDERABLE evidence. There is cotton present in the sample (not present in the shroud). There is vanillin present (not present in the shroud). There is a dye-gum mixture on the sample (not present in the shroud). The area even appears darker to the naked eye than other areas of the shroud (the result of the dyed cotton aging differently than other areas). The scientists that did the C14 testing even commented on “fibres of other origins” found prior to testing the samples. The evidence is overwhelming that this was not a valid sample and the testing simply cannot be considered accurate. No matter how much you would like it to be.
“But just because we have not figured out how to make it yet, doesn’t negate the carbon evidence. As far as science is concerned, the shroud is fake.”
I agree, negating the C14 results has nothing to do with whether or not we know how the image is made. Nor can we say that because we don’t know how the image was made, that it had to be of supernatural origin. Many of us, Dr. Rogers included, feel there was a natural phenomenon at work that caused the image formation (the amine vapors from a decomposing body causing a Mailliard reaction that formed the image is the leading theory currently). The word “fake” implying that someone purposely created the image is highly improbable given what we know about it. Nor has science come even remotely close to proving that it was a “fake” in that respect. You cannot just pick and choose what science you want to believe just because it fits what you want to be true. However, there’s nothing that we’ve learned about the shroud that would force anyone to believe something of a religious nature either. Even should the shroud actually match the historical person of Jesus, that need not lead one to assume that it had to be of supernatural origin. One could postulate just as easily that the natural formation of this unusual image was what gave rise to the “story” of resurrection.
- Posted by Mary JoNo scientist has any issue with the carbon dating. And according to this, the shroud was a fake.
People have argued various reasons for why the dating was flawed, but none of these arguments are scientific or have been disproven.
The only other thing that religious folk can say is that the sample was from the medieval ages, but not the shroud.
This ignores the fact that:
-Multiple samples were tested, using different science teams, at several different times over the decade.
-There is no actual evidence that the tested samples were any different to the rest of the shroud.
-The vatican has since refused to provide further samples for testing.
The only issue now is discovering how the fake was made. Something which is both interesting and a puzzle worth solving.
But just because we have not figured out how to make it yet, doesn’t negate the carbon evidence. As far as science is concerned, the shroud is fake. Because this is what the evidence has indicated.
- Posted by Noah IdeaIt’s quite amusing to read some of the comments on here, discussions of the shroud’s authenticity need be only scientific in nature, since “authentic” really means only that we can date it definitely to the time of Jesus. Proof that it actually *is* the burial shroud of Jesus is well-nigh impossible. Such a leap would always be a leap of faith. The scientific study of the shroud has been to determine where and when and how it was made and many of these questions remain unanswered. Far too many atheists and skeptics simply take the scientific data they *like* and toss out everything else, without truly refuting or explaining it. Hardly good science. True shroud study requires being able to explain all the data that is found…most scientists have no issue at ALL with the radiocarbon dating for instance, and discounted many of the early “nutty” explanations for it that came out immediately after the results were given. However, we have considerable proof now that the dating was accurate *for the sample they had*, but the sampling was faulty. Multiple tests were done, but they were all on the same faulty sample, so equally inaccurate in terms of dating the entire shroud. The protocol agreed on (samples from multiple sites) was not followed so for now, all we know from the RC is that the shroud is considerably OLDER than what the labs found. This is backed up but the fact that the shroud proper has no vanillin, and no cotton, two things found in the sample used for dating.
To say that this simplistic reproduction proves that that the shroud was a fake is absurd in the extremes, and ignores huge amounts of scientific data as to the nature of the image. Copies of the shroud are nothing new, we certainly can mimic the basic appearance of the shroud, but the description of this procedure makes it clear that these do not come even close to meeting the scientific understanding of the shroud that we have today. Lack of pigment on the linen, the superficiality, lack of direction, 3D encoding, the lack of image under the blood stains, etc. Also in 2004 a second image was found on the back of the shroud, equally superficial and yet totally in-line with the front image. One can only imagine the difficulty of creating such an image without using some substance that would bleed through the entire cloth (which we know it did not). There are far, far many more criteria that have to be met by a “fake” shroud than simple image production.
- Posted by Mary JoWhat if I change my first name to God or to Jesus or Allah? How will preacher like Dominik say that it is wrong? Will it be as simple as “Jesus you are wrong.” or “Allah you are wrong.”
- Posted by BunnyDominick: I have two friends who have snakes. Neither snake can talk? No matter how much we try, or how much we pray, they just won’t talk. I wonder how the one in the Bible talked? Snakes don’t have vocal chords…..but catholics believe it all!….UNBELIEVABLE!
The Pope says he doesn’t know if the shroud is genuine or not. Doesn’t the Pope have communications with God? Isn’t he the representative for God on earth? Catholics are taught this. Something is wrong!
- Posted by charts.1[...] According to a Reuter’s follow-up post, Garslaschelli has been getting lots of hate mail since going public with his claims. Why am I not [...]
- Posted by The Shroud Of Turin Revisited | AnAtheist.NetI have a holy book that was written by God, not just inspired by him. In it, he says the Bible is a fake and that Dominick is a nerd. Can’t argue with revelation!
- Posted by cheeseChart 1
“talking snakes”……..ya some of that..LOL
where would I ever find one? LOL
Dominick from
- Posted by Dominick VillapianoWSOPNE.org
1. last comments were to Bunny, not heather…
Now to chat 1 you think this is a new between the Word and science, here read this
Paul told Timothy, don’t waste to much with those who are full of the world and themselves. They Have chose not believe. That Is your FREE WILL, you have exercised it, so why argue with me.
I’m not picking on you, when you ask, I’ll show you the truth.
1 Tim 6:19-21
19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
KJV
Dominick From
- Posted by Dominick VillapianoWSOPNE.org
Dominic: So why do you have a set of encylopedias if you don’t believe what is written in them? (LOL) Are there stories in the encyclopedias about talking snakes and talking donkeys, and jesus cursing a fig tree. Or Adam living to be 930 years old? Come on Dom, you were probably indoctrinated into this belief system like me and learned only one narrow minded view. Time you expanded your ability and knowledge and worked with people instead of conflicting with them. Organized religion is the great wall builder around people. Thats sad.
The Pope doesn’t even know if the Shroud is real or not. UNBLIEVABLE!
- Posted by charts.1Ms Heather
I have set of 1964 encyclopedias, 44 years old right?
Would you like me to go down a little list of things, just a little list, only 5 or six pages of just titles, not including my study, of subjects that the bible has been saying happened, that in 1964 science did not, or could not have happened. And then I have a three page list of titles, on subjects, that science NOW SAYS did happen and growing. Ya me and “THAT JUST A BOOK” are ready. A better name for that book, “I Am Who I Am” or “My Jehovah” or “Abba Father”
I do not argue, I prove?
Dominick from
- Posted by Dominick VillapianoWSOPNE.org
Ms Heather
YOU BET YOUR LIFE!
May I please have the honor?
Where do you want to start?
Dominick from
- Posted by Dominick VillapianoWSOPNE.org
Dominick,
Are you sure you want to argue against rationality and science with a book? Spend your time in reinforcing your faith in the book than the time of others. When people will get fed up with science and rationality, they will come seeking your faith based messages. Till that time, develop your faith than developing faith of others. You have the faith in this Taurin and you believe it is true then why are you getting perturbed? The guys are not trying to prove that your faith is wrong. The guys are testing whether what guys like you are feeding to the world is worth eating or not. Don’t they have this right too?
- Posted by Bunny