Which Is The Fraud?

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Fr. Bruno' post='1598625' date='Jul 12 2008, 01:26 PM']Well it was years ago, and I can't remember all he said... but I think one of the things he mentioned was the fact that twice (if I remember well) the shroud was attacked by flames of fire... and that this modifies the radiation effect... or something like that. Sorry, I'm not only poor in chemistry, but also my English is somewhat unfit to explain these kind of things...[/quote]

I think that I understand, Father. The shroud would come into contact with smoke from the wood that was burned. This smoke would have carbon from the trees of the wood. So, the carbon dating would be dating both the trees that were burned in the church, as well as the shroud itself.

[quote]Does it make any sense ? If not, you should go to Moscow and discuss it with the guy over there...[/quote]

Very funny, Father.

Thank you for the clarification!

Edited July 12, 2008 by mommas_boy

[lilac_angel]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1598510' date='Jul 12 2008, 08:25 AM']I have also seen research done that Christ could have been nailed through the palm in a particular place, and the Romans would have been expert at what did and didn't work in crucifixions.[/quote]

I think I remember seeing many depictions of Jesus in which his wrists were tied tightly to the Cross and his hands were nailed.

[dominicansoul]

Does it really matter where the nails were placed....so long as we believe HE endured being nailed to the cross for our sins?

Should we wonder whether he had blue eyes or brown? Should we discuss his waist size? His body weight?

Perhaps the Lord likes to give the Stigmata on the palms of the hands to His Saints? Why would it be necessary for them to be exact replica's of His wounds?

None of the choices are frauds....

[lilac_angel]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1598407' date='Jul 12 2008, 12:24 AM'][size=3]The Shroud of Turin[/size]
[img]http://z.about.com/d/paranormal/1/7/M/V/1/shroud-of-turin.jpg[/img]

One Shows the wonds of Christ on the hands, the other on the wrists.
Seems odd
[/quote]

Original poster: If you look at bone structure, the nail technically looks like it's still on his hand, just a lower part of the hand. It looks like it's in the metacarpals of the bone, which is still the hand. Going straight through the wrist would probably kill a person right away, due to all the blood loss it would cause. The idea was to have a slow, painful death on the Cross. So the wrists being tied tightly and the lower part of his hand being pierced wouldn't run contrary to logic or the Shroud.

[salterrae]

JM + JT

Looks more like the carpals to me.

But that wouldn't be right since, as the Lamb, his bones were supposed to remain unbroken, correct?

[CatherineM]

I had the unfortunate experience of having something pierce my left palm. Even the surgeon had trouble removing it, so I think the tendons, ligaments, and muscles there are stronger than we realize. It also made me a firm believer that Padre Pio could not have self inflicted his stigmata. It hurt, and made my left hand unusable for awhile. I can't imagine him being able to do that repeatedly, and still being able to feed himself.

[JustJ]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1598407' date='Jul 12 2008, 01:24 AM'][size=3]The Shroud of Turin[/size]
[img]http://z.about.com/d/paranormal/1/7/M/V/1/shroud-of-turin.jpg[/img]

[size=3]The Stigmata[/size]
[img]http://s3.amazonaws.com/bloghoax/PadrePio.jpg[/img]

One Shows the wonds of Christ on the hands, the other on the wrists.
Seems odd
[/quote]
The shroud has been disproved many times over.

As for the hands thing, that wouldn't have held a body on the cross. I guess one might argue that it's symbolic more than literal, though, so I've got no argument against this case of Stigmata right now.

[lilac_angel]

No, it hasn't been "disproven" many times over. It's still being debated to this day. People have attempted to disprove it, sometimes using parts of the cloth that were later repaired, for example, which made it seem that it was made much later than it was, but if it were already disproven, then I think that would be more apparent by now.

[JustJ]

[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1599280' date='Jul 13 2008, 04:43 PM']No, it hasn't been "disproven" many times over. It's still being debated to this day. People have attempted to disprove it, sometimes using parts of the cloth that were later repaired, for example, which made it seem that it was made much later than it was, but if it were already disproven, then I think that would be more apparent by now.[/quote]
Minor nitpick: It's "disproved" (ending in a d).

But if you want to prove it is true, why not allow a portion of the cloth that bears the image itself to be tested? Surely, that is the part that would give the most accurate results.

Based on your claim, then, it is inconclusive. However, the evidence is, so far, stacked against it. (The only swatch authorized to be tested did not show any evidence of it being even remotely near the correct time period. All you would have to do to turn this around and show that it is true, if it is, in fact, true, is allow some portion from the original to be tested. I somehow do not think you could even possibly say that the part bearing the image of the man is anything but the original, unless you would concede that the image itself is not entirely genuine.)

Unfortunately, you are all quite convinced it is true before you even know it to be true, and you do not allow testing of any other parts, and the parts you did allow testing in, which contradicts your claims, is thrown out.

I really wish I could make up a story like that and believe it, but I don't see how that would make me anything but crazy.

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://www.innoval.com/C14/"]Radiocarbon Dating Red Flags[/url]

There were other clues, as well. All of them were warning signs that something might be wrong with the carbon 14 samples:

[indent]* Giovanni Riggi, the person who actually cut the carbon 14 sample from the Shroud stated, "I was authorized to cut approximately 8 square centimetres of cloth from the Shroud…This was then reduced to about 7 cm because fibres of other origins had become mixed up with the original fabric …" (emphasis mine)

* Giorgio Tessiore, who documented the sampling, wrote: “…1 cm of the new sample had to be discarded because of the presence of different color threads.” (emphasis mine)

* Edward (Teddy) Hall, head of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory, had noticed fibers that looked out of place. A laboratory in Derbyshire concluded that the rogue fibers were cotton of “a fine, dark yellow strand.” Derbyshire's Peter South wrote: “It may have been used for repairs at some time in the past…”

* Gilbert Raes, when later he examined some of the carbon 14 samples, noticed that cotton fibers were contained inside the threads, which could help to explain differences in fiber diameter. This may also explain why the carbon 14 samples apparently weighed much more than was as expected.

* Alan Adler at Western Connecticut State University found large amounts of aluminum in yarn segments from the radiocarbon sample, up to 2%, by energy-dispersive x-ray analysis. Why aluminum? That was an important question because it is not found elsewhere on the Shroud.

* The radiocarbon lab at the University of Arizona conducted eight tests. But there was a wide variance in the computed dates and so the team in Arizona combined results to produce four results thus eliminating the more outlying dates (reportedly they did so at the request of the British Museum, which was overseeing the tests). Even then, according to Remi Van Haelst, a retired industrial chemist in Belgium, the results failed to meet minimum statistical standards (chi-squared tests). Why the wide variance in the dates? Was it because of testing errors? Or was it because the sample was not sufficiently homogeneous? The latter seems very likely now, and the statistical anomaly indicates something very suspicious about the samples.

* Bryan Walsh, a statistician, examined Van Haelst’s analysis and further studied the measurements. He concluded that the divided samples used in multiple tests contained different levels of the C14 isotope. The overall cut sample was non-homogeneous and thus of questionable validity. Walsh found a significant relationship between the measured age of various sub-samples and their distance from the edge of the cloth. Though Walsh did not suggest invisible reweaving, it is consistent with his findings.[/indent]

[JustJ]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1599335' date='Jul 13 2008, 05:39 PM'][url="http://www.innoval.com/C14/"]Radiocarbon Dating Red Flags[/url]

There were other clues, as well. All of them were warning signs that something might be wrong with the carbon 14 samples:

[indent]* Giovanni Riggi, the person who actually cut the carbon 14 sample from the Shroud stated, "I was authorized to cut approximately 8 square centimetres of cloth from the Shroud…This was then reduced to about 7 cm because fibres of other origins had become mixed up with the original fabric …" (emphasis mine)

* Giorgio Tessiore, who documented the sampling, wrote: “…1 cm of the new sample had to be discarded because of the presence of different color threads.” (emphasis mine)

* Edward (Teddy) Hall, head of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory, had noticed fibers that looked out of place. A laboratory in Derbyshire concluded that the rogue fibers were cotton of “a fine, dark yellow strand.” Derbyshire's Peter South wrote: “It may have been used for repairs at some time in the past…”

* Gilbert Raes, when later he examined some of the carbon 14 samples, noticed that cotton fibers were contained inside the threads, which could help to explain differences in fiber diameter. This may also explain why the carbon 14 samples apparently weighed much more than was as expected.

* Alan Adler at Western Connecticut State University found large amounts of aluminum in yarn segments from the radiocarbon sample, up to 2%, by energy-dispersive x-ray analysis. Why aluminum? That was an important question because it is not found elsewhere on the Shroud.

* The radiocarbon lab at the University of Arizona conducted eight tests. But there was a wide variance in the computed dates and so the team in Arizona combined results to produce four results thus eliminating the more outlying dates (reportedly they did so at the request of the British Museum, which was overseeing the tests). Even then, according to Remi Van Haelst, a retired industrial chemist in Belgium, the results failed to meet minimum statistical standards (chi-squared tests). Why the wide variance in the dates? Was it because of testing errors? Or was it because the sample was not sufficiently homogeneous? The latter seems very likely now, and the statistical anomaly indicates something very suspicious about the samples.

* Bryan Walsh, a statistician, examined Van Haelst’s analysis and further studied the measurements. He concluded that the divided samples used in multiple tests contained different levels of the C14 isotope. The overall cut sample was non-homogeneous and thus of questionable validity. Walsh found a significant relationship between the measured age of various sub-samples and their distance from the edge of the cloth. Though Walsh did not suggest invisible reweaving, it is consistent with his findings.[/indent][/quote]
That would render those samples rather unreliable.

Why not allow samples that, instead, come from the part no one disputes to be the original, which is any section bearing the marks?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1599339' date='Jul 13 2008, 04:41 PM']That would render those samples rather unreliable.

Why not allow samples that, instead, come from the part no one disputes to be the original, which is any section bearing the marks?[/quote]

The question would be is there such a part? Over the ages the Shroud has been repaired many times, but it has also been cut here and there, and all over. Which brings up another reason why such a step will not be made so quickly. There is at least a possibility, however small or large that the shroud is real, which would make it the burial cloth of God. With that understanding, I could understand why the Holy See isn't to quick to go cutting it up some more. The Holy See will probably again allow some part to be cut off, but it most likely will not be soon, as nothing from the Holy See is done quickly.

[fides quarens intellectum]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1599275' date='Jul 13 2008, 03:36 PM']The shroud has been disproved many times over.[/quote]

no, it has not.

[quote name='JustJ' post='1599290' date='Jul 13 2008, 03:49 PM']But if you want to prove it is true, why not allow a portion of the cloth that bears the image itself to be tested? Surely, that is the part that would give the most accurate results.[/quote]

They have - they carefully pulled fibrils (i don't remember how many, and haven't teh time to find it) and performed a battery of tests on them (see below).

[quote name='JustJ' post='1599290' date='Jul 13 2008, 03:49 PM']However, the evidence is, so far, stacked against it. (The only swatch authorized to be tested did not show any evidence of it being even remotely near the correct time period. All you would have to do to turn this around and show that it is true, if it is, in fact, true, is allow some portion from the original to be tested. I somehow do not think you could even possibly say that the part bearing the image of the man is anything but the original, unless you would concede that the image itself is not entirely genuine.)[/quote]

i wouldn't say the evidence is stacked against it. Again, i suggest Mark Antonacci's [u]The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical and Archeological Evidence[/u], which talks about tests performed, such as accelerator mass spectrometry, applied spectral imaging, biuret-lowry, chemical, cyanmethemoglobin, fluorescence, FTIR, hemochromagen, microspectrophtotometric transmission, protease, proteolytic enzyme, reflection spectra, SEM, ultraviolet flourscence and imaging, and Xray. Plus, the dubious 1988 radiocarbon, which other people have already discussed the problems of.


[quote name='JustJ' post='1599290' date='Jul 13 2008, 03:49 PM']Unfortunately, you are all quite convinced it is true before you even know it to be true, and you do not allow testing of any other parts, and the parts you did allow testing in, which contradicts your claims, is thrown out.

I really wish I could make up a story like that and believe it, but I don't see how that would make me anything but crazy.[/quote]

No, i really am a bit of a skeptic (predominantly Baptist and atheist in background), so i was not at all leaning towards its veractiy until doing a small bit of research. For me, i don't see any rational explanation for it not to be the shroud Jesus was buried in - too much evidence supports it being so (especially considering most of the evidence on the shroud could not be understood/appreciated until science and technology caught up, 1900+ years after the Resurrection event). However, this is not something that we have to believe in, one way or the other, as Catholics. For me, it certainly adds to the faith, but i don't recall the Church ever saying we must to believe this is the burial cloth of Jesus. i think of it as like a cool bonus for being Catholic.

[Madame Vengier]

There's nothing odd about it.

Both are correct.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1599275' date='Jul 13 2008, 03:36 PM']The shroud has been disproved many times over.[/quote]

Wrong.

Anyway....