The Shroud of Turin might not be fake......(??)

[mooeypoo]

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/03/21/shroud-turin.html

 

... interesting... but worse, I bet this will raise the issue (AGAIN) to the creationists (oh, sorry, "Intelligent Design") heads.

 

 

What are your thoughts about this?

[Realitycheck]

This piece of cloth has myth written all over it. Seriously, do you honestly think that an original shroud would have an imprint of his face on it at any time in history? Wouldn't traces of age-old skin cells be more appropriate, accompanied by even smaller pieces of residue - facial oils, blood stains, etc.? We should be doing DNA testing on it to see if any person's skin was actually ever in contact with it whatsoever.

[mooeypoo]

This piece of cloth has myth written all over it. Seriously, do you honestly think that an original shroud would have an imprint of his face on it at any time in history? Wouldn't traces of age-old skin cells be more appropriate, accompanied by even smaller pieces of residue - facial oils, blood stains, etc.? We should be doing DNA testing on it to see if any person's skin was actually ever in contact with it whatsoever.

 

No of course I don't, I am surprised it is raised up again (in "Discovery News"!!) as "might be" true...

 

That thing is the biggest hoax/fraud/myth ever, and yet this article makes it "sound" like it might be the real deal.

 

Of course, just reading a bit through it you see that the TITLE is misleading -- scientists want to *re check* the age, not because it might not be right but because of contaminants that might have been evident in the check 20 years ago.

 

I was just surprised that discovery news (which is supposed to be pro science non-dramatic-crap usually) is putting up such a title.

 

~moo

 

btw -- I don't think there's any DNA left after 20 years. On the other hand, I believe the initial age-check found that this *cloth itself* is about 1000 years old or so.. which.. hehe... invalidates the entire thing with no NEED for dna check.

[Daecon]

How will they prove who's identity is supposed to be on the shroud?

[mooeypoo]

How will they prove who's identity is supposed to be on the shroud?

 

If they prove the shroud is relatively young, then it's definitely not jesus.

[John Cuthber]

The essence of the "scientific" argument seems to be this "Based on information about C14 dating that wasn't available 20 years ago, Jackson's theory suggests that only a two percent contamination could skew results by 1,500 years. "

Which is odd, they knew about contamination 20 years back too.

For this "new information" to make any sense all the separate parts of the shroud would have had to be "contaminated" to exactly the same degree.

A much more sensible reason for all the 3 labs' results agreeing is that all of them were competent and so removed any contamination from the sub samples of cloth before they analysed it. Since the labs concerned were the best in the world that seems quite reasonable.

There's also this bit "Basically, it is a re-analysis of the available data which takes into consideration the spatial positions of the sub-samples on the shroud. It shows that the 1988 statistical results are not correct,"

which makes sense if the different peieces of the shroud are of significantly different ages or compositions. This overlooks the fact that it's basicly 1 bit of cloth.

[Edtharan]

I can prove the Shoud of Turin is a fake with a very simple experiment that anyone can do at home.

 

1) Get a piece of material that you can drape across someone's face.

2) Get a texta that can mark the cloth.

3) Drape/gently wrap the material across an assistant's face.

4) Trace the features of your assistant with the texta onto the cloth.

5) Unwrap the cloth from your assistent.

 

You will see that the features are slightly distorted. This is due to the fact that you have "mapped" a 3d surface onto a 2D surface. In the computer graphics circles, this phenomina is well understood (because you have to drape a 2D texture onto a 3D model). But, if you look at the Shoud of Turin, the face is not distorted .

 

This means that the face that you see on the shroud did not get there by being wrapped over a face as it would have if it really was a shroud.

 

Of course they probably didn't know this in medieval times (or at least far less people would know about it), and a faker would want people the see a recognisable face (the distortions would make it hard for observers to recognise whos face it was supposed to be).

 

There is no physical way that the face on the Shroud of Turin got there by imprinting a face it was wrapped around. The geometry of it is completly wrong.

[mooeypoo]

I can prove the Shoud of Turin is a fake with a very simple experiment that anyone can do at home.

 

1) Get a piece of material that you can drape across someone's face.

2) Get a texta that can mark the cloth.

3) Drape/gently wrap the material across an assistant's face.

4) Trace the features of your assistant with the texta onto the cloth.

5) Unwrap the cloth from your assistent.

 

You will see that the features are slightly distorted. This is due to the fact that you have "mapped" a 3d surface onto a 2D surface. In the computer graphics circles, this phenomina is well understood (because you have to drape a 2D texture onto a 3D model). But, if you look at the Shoud of Turin, the face is not distorted .

 

This means that the face that you see on the shroud did not get there by being wrapped over a face as it would have if it really was a shroud.

 

Of course they probably didn't know this in medieval times (or at least far less people would know about it), and a faker would want people the see a recognisable face (the distortions would make it hard for observers to recognise whos face it was supposed to be).

 

There is no physical way that the face on the Shroud of Turin got there by imprinting a face it was wrapped around. The geometry of it is completly wrong.

 

Oh my god, dude.. can I use this for my smarterthanthat project? That would be so awesome, I'll do it on cam...

 

I'll give you credit, too!

[NeonBlack]

Hey, some people have flat faces...

 

Anyway, a couple of nights ago, I think either on the history or national geographic channel there was a program on the history of the shroud. Apparently, when the C14 testing was done, most of it was taped except for one small segment. After they cut off a little corner of the shroud, one person brought it into the back room, put it in a box and then brought it back out. Why didn't the cameras catch this most crucial moment? They said it was to prevent experimental bias, but a lot of people came up with their own reasons and a few people even claimed that it was the church that switched the samples.

[Edtharan]

Oh my god, dude.. can I use this for my smarterthanthat project? That would be so awesome, I'll do it on cam...

 

I'll give you credit, too!

 

Sure you can use it.

 

I think the strongest evidence that it is a fake is that the face is not distorted as it would be if it really was wrapped over a body. It even mean that the face is not even from an actual body, it must have been painted on some how.

 

Yes, this means that it is not even a case of mistaken identity (that it might have been someone elses shroud). Because the fase is not distorted it can not be a real shroud, let alone the shoud of christ .

[mooeypoo]

 

Sure you can use it.

 

I think the strongest evidence that it is a fake is that the face is not distorted as it would be if it really was wrapped over a body. It even mean that the face is not even from an actual body, it must have been painted on some how.

 

Yes, this means that it is not even a case of mistaken identity (that it might have been someone elses shroud). Because the fase is not distorted it can not be a real shroud, let alone the shoud of christ .

 

If I do make that video, I should probably split it in half - 1 part for this concept, and the other for a short explanation/demonstration about Pareidolia...