Shroud of Turin Confirmed as Fake

[Modem Butterfly]

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1274&storyid=3326411


"A mediaeval technique helped us to make a Shroud," Science & Vie (Science and Life) said in its July issue.

The Shroud is claimed by its defenders to be the cloth in which the body of Jesus Christ was wrapped after his crucifixion. It bears the faint image of a blood-covered man with holes in his hand and wounds in his body and head, the apparent result of being crucified, stabbed by a Roman spear and forced to wear a crown of thorns.

In 1988, scientists carried out carbon-14 dating of the delicate linen cloth and concluded that the material was made some time between 1260 and 1390. Their study prompted the then archbishop of Turin, where the Shroud is stored, to admit that the garment was a hoax. But the debate sharply revived in January this year.

Drawing on a method previously used by sceptics to attack authenticity claims about the Shroud, the magazine got an artist to do a bas-relief - a sculpture that stands out from the surrounding background - of a Christ-like face. A scientist then laid out a damp linen sheet over the bas-relief and let it dry, so that the thin cloth was moulded onto the face. A FRENCH magazine has said it had carried out experiments that proved the Shroud of Turin, believed by some Christians to be their religion's holiest relic, was a fraud.


"A mediaeval technique helped us to make a Shroud," Science & Vie (Science and Life) said in its July issue.
The Shroud is claimed by its defenders to be the cloth in which the body of Jesus Christ was wrapped after his crucifixion.

Drawing on a method previously used by sceptics to attack authenticity claims about the Shroud, the magazine got an artist to do a bas-relief - a sculpture that stands out from the surrounding background - of a Christ-like face. A scientist then laid out a damp linen sheet over the bas-relief and let it dry, so that the thin cloth was moulded onto the face. Using cotton wool, he then carefully dabbed ferric oxide, mixed with gelatine, onto the cloth to make blood-like marks. When the cloth was turned inside-out, the reversed marks resulted in the famous image of the crucified Christ.

Gelatine, an animal by-product rich in collagen, was frequently used by Middle Age painters as a fixative to bind pigments to canvas or wood. The imprinted image turned out to be wash-resistant, impervious to temperatures of 250 C (482 F) and was undamaged by exposure to a range of harsh chemicals, including bisulphite which, without the help of the gelatine, would normally have degraded ferric oxide to the compound ferrous oxide.

[Bunny]

1. I'm going to stay out of this thread.

I was in a HUGE flamewar last year in a Shroud of Turin thread! I don't even remember now what I was arguing about, but it was a doozie!

[trotsky]

2. Shouldn't the headline be...

"Shroud of Turin Confirmed as Fake for the Umpteenth Time"?

Too bad our #1 shroud defender is no more. I'm sure he'd have some great miraculous explanation ready.

[whistle]

3. Very good....

...have school students replicate the process as science projects.

[jonnyblitz]

4. is anything to do with religion real? just curious... nt

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jonnyblitz]

32. damn i hate it when someboy gets nasty with me and i miss it...

:P

[KittyWampus]

85. I Could Get Testy With Ya, Just Say The Word & I'll Be Happy To Say

something snotty. :)

:hi:

[jonnyblitz]

136. hey if i piss you off than you should! you might wanna PM me

and let me know so I can read it before the post gets deleted! :hi:

[Taxloss]

12. The warfare?

That's pretty real.

[jobycom]

24. Religion doesn't cause warfare

It's just the way politicians sell the war. And has been for as far back as historians can measure. Wars are always caused by money.

[jonnyblitz]

33. self-delete

just realized my comment was in error..

[Modem Butterfly]

37. Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people

[jobycom]

58. False syllogism

Guns are weapons. Religion isn't a weapon, it's just a trump card used by bad people to justify their bad actions. It can also be an excuse by a good person to justify their good actions. Religion neither makes a person good or bad, it just gives good and bad people something to blame their actions on.

[Modem Butterfly]

71. Then how about this: Knives don't kill people...

Knives aren't weapons. They're just used as weapons by some people.

[jobycom]

77. That's pretty clever

and much closer, but if you're smart enough to think of that, you see why it's not the same thing, too. :-)

[Modem Butterfly]

82. Yeah, no one would argue that knives aren't dangerous

;)

[jobycom]

84. Oh, forget it

I'm not trying to play word games, I just hate the bigotry around here, whether it's directed at religion or anything else. Guess I'm too serious today.

[Modem Butterfly]

86. ROFLMAO!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[beam me up scottie]

97. .

My usual compliments for your bad behaviour.

:evilgrin:

[Taxloss]

42. What about the Crusades, to name but one example?

No politicians involved. The First Crusade was inspired directly by the Pope in the name of religion.

[jobycom]

59. As an historian of the Crusades

I can assure you that Pope Urban II did not preach the Crusades for religious reasons only, and most people who went had a lot of reasons for going.

The Roman Emperor in Byzantium was losing his lands to the Muslim nations conquering them, and he appealed to the west for assistance. Since at the time there were no powerful secular leaders to appeal to, and since the Pope claimed to rank over all secular leaders anyway, the Emperor asked Urban for assistance. Urban then preached his sermon at Clermont. He appealed to their sense of Christianity, but he also promised them land and wealth, and he told horror stories of Europeans who were tortured to death in the East, and called for their vengence.

The leaders of the First Crusade, both the early popular one and the slightly later more organized one, were landless nobles seeking their fortunes. They had been fighting each other. They saw greater potential in attacking Palestine, so they banded together and attacked.

Christianity was used by Urban and the other leaders in the same way that nationalism is used to day. If there had been no religion at all, the Crusades would have happened, but would have used another excuse. That's my point. Religion was the excuse used, but it didn't cause it.

More proof of that would be what the Crusaders did when they conquered Palestine. They immediately formed alliances with local Muslims against other Muslims. There were cases where the European Christians formed alliances with Muslims against Christians already living in Palestine. It was clearly not about religion, but power and money.

[Taxloss]

64. "another excuse would have been used" - that's an extremely

convenient thesis. Impossible to disprove, in fact, if you reject the idea of historical inevitability which I believe most historians now do. Unless you adhere to a Marxist, determinist or Whig approach.

But what other single organising structure could possibly have mustered that level of Europe-wide support, if not the church? Nothing, that's what. And if it was inspired purely by secular passions, why did the Crusaders regularly take time out on their way to the Holy Land to persecute local Jewish populations? And I find the First Crusade battle cry, "Deus Vulte!" (God wills it!) to be particularly secular. In fact, the whole council of Clermont was secular, wasn't it? as were the descriptions of the evil Muslims torturing the population of Jerusalem. Religion is the absolute beating heart of the First Crusade.

Incidentally, I studied the First Crusade as a Part II Tripos subject at Cambridge University and was lectured by Riley-Smith.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Modem Butterfly]

72. Yikes

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vladimir]

91. I haven't studied the crusades in a scholarly way, but

it seems to me that there is a difference between a means to an end and a motive for pursuing these ends. While religion was indeed what unified much of Europe in this war, and defined the form which this conflict took, I am hard pressed to believe that the underlying motives for all this were anything other than a land/wealth grab. That is not to say that the Crusades would have happened without the church - and no serious Marxist would claim that btw. - the claim here is merely that without an economic incentive, the church wouldn't have called for them in the first place.

[Taxloss]

103. As was proclaimed at the Battle of Dorylaeum:

"Hodie omnes divitas si Deo placet effecti eritis!" ("Today, if it pleases God, you will all become rich!")

So six of one and half a dozen of the other.

[jobycom]

112. Notice which was the main sentence and which the subordinate clause?

[Modem Butterfly]

115. What was that about not wanting to play word games?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

:evilgrin:

[jobycom]

117. It's not a word game

The sentence shows the speaker is motivated by wealth. God is the enabler. Which is my point.

[Modem Butterfly]

120. Well, not much of one anyway...

[Taxloss]

116. What on Earth does that indicate?

the concept of subordinate clause barely exists in Latin, and Deo is up at the front!

On edit: Notice the lack of commas!

[jobycom]

119. "If it please god"

is a subordinate clause. And as you know, putting something at the end of a sentence in Latin emphasizes it.

Commas weren't used in Latin writing because punctuation wasn't needed as often because the declination of the nouns indicated the noun's place in a sentence.

[Taxloss]

124. Grammatically, maybe, the "If it .. " structure subordinates that

syntactic element, but in terms of the patterns of speech used to motivate bands of Crusaders, God is up front and you know it. God was forever up front, on both sides.

[Modem Butterfly]

114. Well, religion and money have been tied up from the beginning

Religion was probably developed from simple superstition as a way of keeping the masses quiet and paying through the nose for salvation. Or, maybe money was developed as a handy way to keep track of all the wealth accumulated through religion. Either way, it's a chicken-or-the-egg kind of argument, and silly, because they're each at the root of many terrible and near intractable problems.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jobycom]

60. Selective examples. Why not choose Jesus, Francis, Mother Theresa

Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Pope JP II, Cardinal Bernadin of Chicago.

Unless you can prove your 8 out of 10 number, I'm going to dismiss it as mere bigotry. 85-90% of the nation believe in some religion (for the record, I'm not one of them), so obviously a lot of church goers opposed the war, too. Does that mean that religion makes people pacifists?

Your last sentence pretty much sums up my point. Bloodthirsty people use religion to justify their actions. So do good people. Religion doesn't cause a person to be good or bad, it's just the excuse they use to do it.

[Taxloss]

67. Statistical chicanery.

The poster said "church people", not religious people, which I for one took to mean "churchgoers" - an entirely different set to sample from, and one representing a smaller slice of the population. I think most of us would find itsafe to assume the poster meant "Christian churchgoers", so the sample shrinks again.

Meanwhile, there is absolutely no statistical or logical way to justify your statement "85-90% of the nation believe in some religion (for the record, I'm not one of them), so obviously a lot of church goers opposed the war, too. Does that mean that religion makes people pacifists?" - it's just a total fallacy. Even a statistical correlation wouldn't demonstrate causation.

[beam me up scottie]

69. He's not a worthy opponent, Tax.

If you ask him for clarification more than once, he'll start with the insults.
He just called me stupid, twice.
Don't waste your time.

[jonnyblitz]

73. well it must get tiring having to be an apologist for that crap

i would get snarky, too.

[Taxloss]

79. I wasn't asking for an apology.

I was pointing out that religion might have caused the Crusades.

[jonnyblitz]

100. you misunderstood my post...i wasn't referring to you..

:hi:

[Taxloss]

102. Fair enough.

:hi:

[beam me up scottie]

109. Yeah, Jonny's part of our "posse" !

We're not usually allowed to post on the same thread but I don't think anyone's monitoring the playground right now...

[Modem Butterfly]

122. The inmates are running the asylum...

:crazy:

[beam me up scottie]

126. Nurse Ratchett !

nt

[Modem Butterfly]

128. Step away from the fountain, Cheif

I'm just sleeping with my eyes open!

TWITCH!

;)

[Moderator]

130. Actually - you are being watched

make sure you play nice now! :hi:

[Modem Butterfly]

74. They'll know we're Xians by our ad hominem attacks

:evilgrin:

[Taxloss]

87. That seems to be an accredited form of debate in history faculties now.

So it would seem. How things have changed. It would have been great if I was able to seal my defeat of another argument in a seminar by just saying "you're stupid. I know more than you. Shut up." Much less work that way.

[beam me up scottie]

101. Here's the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3936352

I see he's playing well with others in this thread too.

Unfortunately, some students never master simple social skills.

tsk, a tragedy really.

[jobycom]

95. Sigh

You never asked for clarifications, you hurled insults first, and when I politely explained what I meant, you ignored everything I said and hurled insults again, then went downstream and misunderstood what I said there, and hurled more insults. When I finally responded in kind, you got the point, but got all offended. I held my peace longer than you, by a long shot, and I was right, as you admitted-- you were misreading my posts.

[jobycom]

75. Okay, that's fair enough, but then his argument doesn't support his

opinion. I was arguing that religion isn't the case of warfare, so my statistics were based on religion. If he's narrowing it to "churchgoers" then he's arguing that going to church, and not religious belief, cause war. And I still assume his statistics are wrong.

As for your last point, I guess I just don't understand it. It sounds like you are just repeating what I said, but I'm guessing you aren't, so you'll have to explain it better. My point was that you could no more argue that religion caused war than that it caused pacifism, and I used statistics to show how large a percentage of America was religious. Go from there, explain to me what you mean.

[Taxloss]

78. Re-edited post

I think I was unfair. I should not have called you sloppy. I also misread your post. You'll have to forgive me. I'm quite angry.

I think that we can safely assume Christian churchgoers represent the constituency decribed by TWiley who came out strongly in favour of th war. I would furthermore add that religion was a key element in the propaganda campaign to support the war. Nevertheless I do not maintain that religion "caused" the Iraq War; the Bush administration caused the Iraq war. But the fact that flocks of people are happy to troop into megachurches and be told what to think is an indoctrination network so effective it has only been emulated, never bettered.

[jobycom]

90. I wouldn't argue with that

But it confirms my original point. Religion doesn't cause the wars, it's just used as an excuse by those who start them.

[Taxloss]

99. Petrol spilled on a floor doesn't cause fires.

The lighted match dropped onto it does.

It's called an "accelerant", and the match would only singe the carpet were it not for the accelerant.

[jobycom]

105. Which are you saying is which?

Is religion the match or the accelerant?

Neither one is what I'm arguing, though. More like, religion is the smoke. It's very visible, it blinds people, it smells bad, and it makes some people think it is the fire, but it's just a by-product.

[Taxloss]

110. So religion was a by-product of the Crusades?

This is a radical and exciting new theory. You could get two books out of this.

For the record, the match is the cause and the petrol is the accelerant. Politics or determinist materialism or whatever might float your boat is the match in the First Crusade - religion is the accelerant necessary to turn it into a blaze. And no other accelerant existed at the time.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jobycom]

92. I respond in kind

Polite posts get polite responses, reasoned posts get reasoned responses, spittle often gets spittle.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jobycom]

96. Have you followed any of the threads in question?

First, if you've got some weird impression that I'm religious, I'm not. I'm well known and outspoken as an atheist.

Second, prove to me where I've lied. Or where I've shouted at someone before they shouted at me. Or even where I've shouted at someone the first time they shouted at me.

[beam me up scottie]

113. Why do you think it is

that everyone "misunderstands" you?

Could it possibly have something to do with your communication skills?

Posters have misread me and I gladly explained my position-yes, more than once or twice in a thread.

Asking you to explain your position is not insulting you.

You couldn't do that without insulting my intelligence.

I've misread posters before and apologized, but not after they've insulted me.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Modem Butterfly]

127. Well, I don't want to claim him. Do YOU?

:evilgrin:

Just because you take a shit in the garage doesn't make you a car, or the garage a toilet, or you a Xian, or some such silly-ass homiliy that the magic-thinkers use at a point like this.

[beam me up scottie]

129. COPS !!!!

You throw the BEST parties, MB !

[Modem Butterfly]

131. Just try not to puke on the rug

And for god's sake, keep the Baptists out of the liquor cabinet. Those people are sloppy when they're drunk!

[beam me up scottie]

132. You might as well

pre-delete that one !!!
:spank:

[Taxloss]

133. The dribbling ...

Ugh ...

[jonnyblitz]

31. yup...all the trouble in the name of...that it has caused is damn

real.

[jobycom]

19. Depends on what you mean

Much of the historical context of the Old Testament has been supported (though not really proven) by archeology and the few historical writings that exist parallel to the Bible. The Old Testament itself is really just a bunch of historical scrolls describing people's interpretations of their own histories. So yeah, lots of aspects of the Bible have been shown to be either true, or plausible.

If you're asking if all the God stuff has ever been proven, obviously not, or it wouldn't be called "faith." If people could prove God, they'd have done it long ago.

[Tesha]

54. Religiously-inspired death and destruction is pretty real. (NT)

[JanMichael]

5. It was confirmed "fake" years ago

by carbon dating.

Too bad the Catholic church can't display it for what it is--a clever "relic" made about 800 years ago. Now that's fascinating.

To continue to try to pass it off as the shroud of Jesus devalues it as a true historic relic.

Stephanie

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. Oh, you didn't hear about how the "false" dating happened?

Apparently, the carbon dating was disputed by folks who said the chemical structure of the Shroud had been altered in an abbey fire in the 14th century, which was why the C-14 testing turned up a date for the 14th century. A comical rejoinder, but there it is. ;-)

[jobycom]

20. Not a completely far-fetched argument, actually

The scientist who disputed the findings claimed that the cloth itself had become saturated with some type of organic contaminent, like an algae or mold, and that the carbon dating was capturing that instead of the actual cloth of the shroud. Obviously, carbon dating only works on organic matter.

It was a weak argument, but still plausible enough to investigate.

[AllegroRondo]

36. Bacteria and mold in the shroud threw off the dating

[Kraklen]

62. No, they didn't.

See post 61.

[Kraklen]

61. No, it's not plausible.

Following standard laboratory procedure, the original team thoroughly washed the fibers of any contaminating algae, bacteria, dust, smoke particles, etc. It's right there in the experimental procedures of the peer reviewed article.

[ComerPerro]

40. They don't even believe in Carbon Dating anyway

Its a scam, because it suggests that the earth is more than 5,000 years old...

[shrike]

43. You're confusing Catholics with fundies

We don't have a problem with evolution and science because we don't take the bible literally. Mendel was a monk, don't forget.

I always found the whole idea of the Shroud far-fetched, for a simple reason -- why would anyone have preserved it? Jesus' followers had all scattered, the Romans must have been furious to find the body missing, Jesus was just another crucified guy at that point -- why would anyone have preserved his shroud? BTW, if memory serves me right, the New Testament says the burial cloth came in two parts, not one.

Discovery Channel had a neat -- and very respectful -- program on the life of Christ which suggested that Christ had survived the crucifixion -- hence, the resurrection. One scholar in particular pointed to firsthand accounts of people who actually survived the experience.

[ComerPerro]

45. Yeah but fundies believe in the Shroud, so I was speaking of them

and not Catholics.

Sorry for the confusion.

I didn't even consider the Catholic angle.

[shrike]

55. Well, we have our crazies, too

We did go after Galileo, after all.

There is this reactionary faction in the church which Modem Butterfly mentioned below. They've been around for a while -- they want to undue the good work of Vatican II. With all the other conservative movements burgeoning in the U.S. this is sort of their time. They want to go back to the old days and take it even further if possible. If that means aligning themselves with fundies who've always thought that the Catholic church is the spawn of Satan, and that the earth is only 5,000 years old, so be it.

Sooner or later they're going to figure that there are no "old days" to go back to.

[ComerPerro]

57. Well, that is certainly true

[Modem Butterfly]

47. Actually, many American Catholics are aligning themselves with the Fundies

I wonder how religion would change if it were proven that Christ had, in fact, survived the crucifixtion...

"He's not dead, he's pining for the manger!"

[shrike]

51. I'm not

The "fundie" Catholics are getting a lot of press right now, but there are still a lot of us liberals left -- especially on the east and west coast. Don't know about the south and Midwest. But I do know there's still some anti-Catholic sentiment in certain parts of the south. I personally know some fundie Catholics in the Midwest.

Have no idea how Jesus' "survival" would change religion. I just thought it was an interesting theory. Survival was rare enough that it would have been considered a miracle.

[jobycom]

22. I agree, it's an interesting medieval artifact

and should be recognized as such. Holy relics were the tourist attractions of the Middle Ages, and there were thousands of fakes. As one medieval writer put it, there was a forest of "true" crosses. There were bits and parts of saintly corpses in every church or holy site, and there were thefts and raids to steal and recover these relics all the time. It was big business.

St. Niclaus (yes, Santa Claus) actually started a war when his body was stolen. There were some real oddities, too--the head of John the Baptist at twelve years old was one of the best, and even made its way into Umberto Eco's "Name of the Rose."

The relics trade is fascinating history, and that's where the Shroud belongs--as one of the creative fakes of the Middle Ages. Admitting it is a fake doesn't hurt religion one bit, and it helps understand history a little better.

George W Bush wasn't the first person to forge documents or fix evidence.

[mopaul]

6. what about the stain in the underpass? you can't say THAT ain't real

[TWiley]

48. I have a stain in my undershorts that looks like Limbaugh

[youthere]

63. ALL undershort stains look like Limbaugh.

eom

[Liberal Veteran]

7. The Shroud is authentic....

....as the image of Mary on grilled cheese sandwich.

[arwalden]

89. Of Course It's Authentic

manmade art.

[GOPisEvil]

8. What the heck is a "Christ-like face"?

No one knows what Jesus of Nazareth really looked like.

Sigh...

[JanMichael]

10. Well...we religious people tend to think of him kind of as a cross

between Jerry Garcia and Brian Wilson.

I hope that helps you out some.

Stephanie

[BearClaws]

15. My Wife

was doing the laundry once, and lifted up my shorts, saw the wicked stain and exclaimed "Jesus Christ"!
Does that have any religious significance?

[GOPisEvil]

17. Hmmmm...interesting.

Eh, I'm not focused on his aesthetics anyway. I'm one of those "red-letter" types. :)

[Zomby Woof]

50. Please jebus no!

NOT Brian Wilson. I am definitely an atheist in that case. ;-)

[JanMichael]

56. You better believe; otherwise you will have to sell Hummers for all

eternity.

[dhinojosa]

Like this....

GRROOOOOARRRR!

[Modem Butterfly]

38. You owe me a new keyboard

[jokerman93]

70. Is that the new christ

Is that picture the new christ of the promise keeper girly men who want to pump up their sissy image of jeezusbots?

Very weird - all that fundie homo-erotic self-flagellation!

LOL

[Warren DeMontague]

81. For once, words fail me.

That's some funny shit.

[Taxloss]

14. White guy with a beard and long hair.

You know, a hippy.

[catmandu57]

104. More like this

http://archives.cnn.com./2002/TECH/science/12/25/face.jesus/

[Taxloss]

107. Looks like a Turrst to me. nt

[jobycom]

23. Well, yeah, but if it had been real, then we'd know. Though there is the

story about the theater in south Texas. Residents of a small town in south Texas began to claim they saw the face of Jesus on a theater wall. The face became clearer and clearer, until even skeptics began to acknowledge that yes, it appeared that the face of Jesus was emerging on the theater wall.

Unfortunately, the image became so clear that people realized what had happened. An old concert poster of Willie Nelson had been whitewashed over, and as the whitewash disappeared, Wille emerged.

This upset my theory of the Holy Trinity. I had always claimed that Willie was God, Lyle Lovett was the Son of God, and Hank Williams was the Holy Ghost. Looks like I may have gotten the wrong diety for Willie.

[zalinda]

11. I never heard it was fake

If fact I think there was a recent (within the last 10 years) TV show that was studying the shroud and at the end they still hadn't come up with proof if it was real or not. Wow! Can't believe anything you see on TV.

zalinda

[Modem Butterfly]

39. There's been several conclusive tests

But if they talked about that, it would piss off the religious types and cause more headaches.

[Bridget Burke]

121. It's not "fake"--it is an old, interesting work of art.

And it's "real" as well--in that it is a tangible object.

But it postdates the Crucifixion considerably.

[dhinojosa]

13. Any bets as to when the moderator will either

delete or move this post?

I say in one hour 10:40 Eastern, 7:40 Pacific

[Taxloss]

16. Quick, start discussing some Generals!

That General Pershing was a real nasty piece of work, wasn't he?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Well, there's still Mary on the underpass wall to rely on.

Let's see them scientists prove that it's a fake. Or, how about the image of Jesus on the pizza I ate with that case of beer?

[yodermon]

25. Of COURSE it's a fake.

The image on the shroud is a representation of an orthogonal projection. It can be determined to be a hoax at a single glance.



Now think. How does a body wrapped up in a cloth "project" his image onto said cloth orthogonally??? The picture has depth! It's meant to be a realistic painting! The shroud would have had to be stretched out taut above him and then *flash* "resurrection energies" :eyes: would have to be emitted to produce the image.

Cover your face in paint. Lie down. drape a cloth over your face. Look at the cloth. Will it look like a face? Maybe somewhat, but would it like like this???:


2 seconds of critical thinking, people! I realized this when I was a kid looking at the Nat'l Geographic article in the '80s. My jaw has been agape for 2 decades at people who buy this.

[BearClaws]

26. Religion and Critical Thinking?

Since when do they go together???

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. I think the theory is that a beam of light, like a laser, was emitted by

the body (both up and down - I think the other half of the cloth has an image of his back). Seriously. This just goes to prove how miraculous the whole thing was - no-one had heard of lasers in the Middle Ages, so it couldn't have been a fake from then. :eyes:

[Modem Butterfly]

41. You mean like a multi-pass scanner?

:evilgrin:

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. Ah yes, obviously it was an artefact from the office party

when Jesus decided to do a full photocopy of his body - 2 sided!

[trotsky]

30. Not to mention the physical impossibility...

of lying on your back, shoulders resting, and being able to cover both your hands over your genitals.

[Modem Butterfly]

46. Hey, so the Son of God wasn't well hung. Lay off!

Nobody's perfect.


Oh wait...

:eyes:

Edited to go for the cheap double entendre.

[arwalden]

65. The Eyes Seem To Be In A Strange Location Too...

or is it just-me?

[Kraklen]

66. The whole thing's anatomically incorrect.

I hadn't thought of a medieval bas relief, but that's just what it looks like.

[Karmadillo]

27. Invalid study. Comes from France. Only Americans & their allies are

qualified to comment on something this important.

[Double T]

29. Religions fabricate their own "evidence" to draw in their flock....

unfortunately that "evidence" often has nothing to do with what really occurred.

[catmandu57]

34. That image doesn't look like Bob Dylan to me

I've always thought that if haysus was going to look like anyone it had to be Dylan, that looks like a tall European white guy, there's nothing semitic about that image, but then again no portrayal of the christ has ever looked middle eastern to me.

[DS1]

35. *snarf*

Duh.

[Modem Butterfly]

44. Very succint, yet accurate

Excellent!

[donco6]

135. Pretty much sums it up for me, too. eom

[KharmaTrain]

53. Someone Finally Found The Union Label?

Wow...I can see the History Channel Special Now.

:popcorn:

[Warren DeMontague]

76. Next you'll try to tell me that giant lizards walked the earth millions of

years ago, when the Bible clearly states the earth is only some 5,000 years old.

[elperromagico]

93. If the carbon-dating didn't convince the believers that it's fake,

this sure as hell won't.

When the carbon-dating came out, the Shroud believers claimed that it really proved nothing (even though many of them had been pushing for the tests) because the fire in Turin could have altered the Shroud's carbon date.

Now they'll say, "But this doesn't have the same 3-D characteristics as the Shroud," citing one of the Shroud's "miraculous" qualities (a quality which has been shown to be less than reliable).

They'll say, "But this doesn't have the pollen on it that is native only to Judea that the Shroud has," despite the explanations as to how pollen of that sort could have gotten on the Shroud.

Those who believe in the Shroud have faith that it is genuine and faith is a hard thing to dispell, as it relies on believing something that cannot really be proven.

[blindpig]

123. Another roadside attraction? n/t

[donco6]

134. Next, Our Lady of Guadalupe.

If we're debunking myths, here's one that should have been dealth with honestly centuries ago:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/acosta_23_2.htm

The cult of the virgin on the hill of Tepeyac starts around 1550. The first temple was built a couple of years later, under Zumarraga’s successor Alonso de Montufar. Bishop Montufar is known to have commissioned the now-sacred image from Marcos Cipac de Aquino, an Indian painter famous throughout the regions north of the city. The painter based his initial sketch on a previously existing image of the Virgin of Guadalupe, already revered as the patroness of Extremadura, a province of Spain.

As early as September 1556, Francisco de Bustamante, provincial head of Mexico’s Franciscans, read a memorable sermon in which he clearly dismissed the whole myth: “The devotion that has been growing in a chapel dedicated to Our Lady, called of Guadalupe, in this city is greatly harmful for the natives, because it makes them believe that the image painted by Marcos the Indian is in any way miraculous.”

In 1569, Martin Enriquez de Almanza, fourth viceroy of Mexico, denounced the cult of the Virgin of Guadalupe as a harmful imposture, indeed as disguised worship of the Aztec goddess Tonantzin.

[Moderator]

137. Locking....

This thread has run its course.


DU Moderator