Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Shroud of Turin may not be a hoax after all. I'm not saying it's Jesus, but it's Jesus   ( foxnews.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Shroud of Turin, carbon datings  
•       •       •

14959 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Mar 2013 at 8:43 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



433 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-03-29 10:20:05 AM  

s2s2s2: Picture is not a citation unless it is of a 3D rendering he did, or that someone else reproduced using his techniques.


There is someone that's made a reproduction that provides 3D data like the original. And all it takes is a camera obscura and some photosensitive chemicals to brush on the fabric before exposing it. Turns out, ole Leonardo would've had knowledge of both things. And access to men who look really really Italian, like Jesus does on the shroud.
 
rpm
2013-03-29 10:22:16 AM  

give me doughnuts: This is off by two orders of magnitutde.


And that's if you're being generous.

12 AD: 10 +/- 10
2012 AD: 2010 +/- 5

So things 2000 years apart would show as AT WORST 2015 years apart. Not the same, 2015 years apart. That's over 3 orders of magnitude wrong.
 
2013-03-29 10:23:42 AM  

vygramul: kronicfeld: The Vatican has never confirmed the authenticity of the shroud

Because that is something that the Vatican somehow has the authority to do?

On matters of Catholic faith, yes. Don't they also possess it? A museum that owns a painting is usually considered the authority on whether that painting is genuine.


A museum MAY be an authority on a painting they possess or exhibit and it is expected of them that they will be. But that is entirely reliant on well-documented provenance of the piece - which does not exist in the case of the Shroud. Museums do not come by knowledge magically, just because they exhibit a piece and, in fact, museums have been known to discover hoaxes and counterfeits in their collections long after first exhibiting them as genuine.

It is frequently the case that a museum relies on outside experts, too.
 
2013-03-29 10:25:53 AM  
Heh, listening to last nights Coast to Coast, and they're also trotting out the Shroud of Turin for Easter.

Who says the Vatican doesn't still have far reaching influence.
 
2013-03-29 10:27:34 AM  
farm4.static.flickr.com

The truth.  It's out there.  It couldn't be on the innertubes if it wasn't.
 
2013-03-29 10:30:48 AM  

WhyteRaven74: There is someone


Who? Please show their work.
 
2013-03-29 10:31:18 AM  

czetie: malfist: rpm: malfist: Seriously people. Carbon dating has a resolution of around 5,000 years. Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them.

You dropped a 0. It's accurate to better than 16 years at 5000 years old.

I didn't say it was accurate to 5,000 years. I said carbon dating has a resolution of 5000 years. Technically, it has a resolution of 5,730 years, the halflife of carbon-14. Carbon dating is unlikely to be even close to accurate unless the item is >10K years old.

Wow. You quite literally have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?

I hope that somebody with more patience than I will come along and explain it to you, starting with what the word "resolution" means. As you backpedal furiously here, though, don't forget that you are on record as saying, and I quote, "Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them". Like, for example, the Dead Sea Scrolls, many of which span the period from right before to right after 1AD?

Unless, of course, it's your position that every lab that has ever tested the scrolls, and every historian, theologian, or archaeologist who has ever relied on their tests doesn't understand carbon dating the way you do. Is that your theory?

Perhaps you are unaware that carbon dating is so sensitive that to get a really accurate date range, you have to calibrate against the small natural fluctuations in atmospheric C14 levels in different times and places?

Look, the smart thing to do at this point is to say "Crap, I confused carbon dating with something else entirely. I shouldn't post before coffee." The dumb thing to say is "NO!!! I'm RIGHT!!!! And every scientist on the planet, and every paper every published using carbon dating is WRONG!!!". And the embarrassing thing to say is "Those words that I posted, they really don't mean what they obviously mean."


Smart, dumb, embarrassing: your choice.


Why don't you go peddle your death somewhere else.    Music has taught the rest of the world this carbon 14 you are so fond of is deadly for 10,000 years and here you are suggesting we should use it in our clocks.

(I get my entire world view from musicians - they smarter than the rest)
 
2013-03-29 10:35:24 AM  
It looks real.
ih3.redbubble.net
 
2013-03-29 10:41:13 AM  
Darn.  For a second, I thought it was going to be about  this Túrin.

/never let me on this website before I've had my coffee
 
2013-03-29 10:42:43 AM  

NEPAman: Close2TheEdge: It's the same reason that Young Earth Creationists  and  Climate Change Alarmists shills for the fossil fuel industry employ pseudoscience to support their beliefs.

/FTFF (Fixed That For Fark)

//Because sometimes you feel like a troll.

FTFY -  Because astroturfing is uncool.

 
2013-03-29 10:44:20 AM  
users.stargate.net
 
2013-03-29 10:49:38 AM  

Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.


3.bp.blogspot.com
Not sure about that, this guy might be a fit.
 
2013-03-29 10:49:44 AM  
Why does anybody care about the shroud of Turin? Even if it was proven to have been made on the exact date of Jesus's supposed death it doesn't mean that the person it was made with was supernatural. It's like if you proved that the Romans crucified some guy on that day, well no shiat they crucified lots of people. That doesn't mean that any of them were the son of god. Some stained cloth is not proof of anything other than dirt.
 
2013-03-29 10:50:34 AM  

kronicfeld: The Vatican has never confirmed the authenticity of the shroud

Because that is something that the Vatican somehow has the authority to do?


Relics of he founder of their church are kind of under their baliwick.
 
2013-03-29 10:50:58 AM  

The Pope of Manwich Village: [users.stargate.net image 800x1066]


Corner water damage Jesus is watching you mastrubate.
 
2013-03-29 10:58:46 AM  
Jesus! Jeee-susJessus,
King of the wild frontier!
 
2013-03-29 10:59:31 AM  

kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.


Well, he did tie his ass to a tree, and then walk 40 miles into town...

/rimshot/
 
2013-03-29 11:02:11 AM  

kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.


You realize miracles can't be proved? That's why they're called miracles. It wouldn't be a miracle if there were a perfectly rational explanation. It would simply be science. Poof. Miracle=science?
 
2013-03-29 11:03:37 AM  

I_C_Weener: kronicfeld: The Vatican has never confirmed the authenticity of the shroud

Because that is something that the Vatican somehow has the authority to do?

Relics of he founder of their church are kind of under their baliwick.


so is protecting pedophiliacs and spreading AIDs due to anti-condom policies, so excuse me if I don't think they are entirely honest about stuff.
 
2013-03-29 11:06:47 AM  
commonsenseatheism.com
It. Doesn't. (Much.) Matter.
 
2013-03-29 11:07:29 AM  

jjwars1: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

You realize miracles can't be proved? That's why they're called miracles. It wouldn't be a miracle if there were a perfectly rational explanation. It would simply be science. Poof. Miracle=science?


I guess I should have been more specific. Prove he walked on water or turned water into wine and I might pay attention.
 
2013-03-29 11:11:20 AM  
Why do people of "faith" require all of this "proof"?
 
2013-03-29 11:14:09 AM  
There is only one way to prove its real or not.  Take a fiber with DNA on it, and clone him.


If the Catholic Church has him killed off, you'll know it was a fake.
 
2013-03-29 11:14:28 AM  

czetie: malfist: rpm: malfist: Seriously people. Carbon dating has a resolution of around 5,000 years. Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them.

You dropped a 0. It's accurate to better than 16 years at 5000 years old.

I didn't say it was accurate to 5,000 years. I said carbon dating has a resolution of 5000 years. Technically, it has a resolution of 5,730 years, the halflife of carbon-14. Carbon dating is unlikely to be even close to accurate unless the item is >10K years old.

Wow. You quite literally have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?

I hope that somebody with more patience than I will come along and explain it to you, starting with what the word "resolution" means. As you backpedal furiously here, though, don't forget that you are on record as saying, and I quote, "Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them". Like, for example, the Dead Sea Scrolls, many of which span the period from right before to right after 1AD?

Unless, of course, it's your position that every lab that has ever tested the scrolls, and every historian, theologian, or archaeologist who has ever relied on their tests doesn't understand carbon dating the way you do. Is that your theory?

Perhaps you are unaware that carbon dating is so sensitive that to get a really accurate date range, you have to calibrate against the small natural fluctuations in atmospheric C14 levels in different times and places?

Look, the smart thing to do at this point is to say "Crap, I confused carbon dating with something else entirely. I shouldn't post before coffee." The dumb thing to say is "NO!!! I'm RIGHT!!!! And every scientist on the planet, and every paper every published using carbon dating is WRONG!!!". And the embarrassing thing to say is "Those words that I posted, they really don't mean what they obviously mean."


Smart, dumb, embarrassing: your choice.


THIS
 
2013-03-29 11:28:40 AM  

Ika7734: I_C_Weener: kronicfeld: The Vatican has never confirmed the authenticity of the shroud

Because that is something that the Vatican somehow has the authority to do?

Relics of he founder of their church are kind of under their baliwick.

so is protecting pedophiliacs and spreading AIDs due to anti-condom policies, so excuse me if I don't think they are entirely honest about stuff.


Point of the thread over here.   Your post.................................................................. ...........over here.
 
2013-03-29 11:30:56 AM  
Not to defend FOX partially but the shroud's going to be in the news regardless since Benedict apparently signed off on a new media deal as a parting gift. It's possible FOX mentions that but I'm not clicking the link.
 
2013-03-29 11:34:38 AM  
To me the shroud of Turin has always looked more like fecal stains on a piece of cloth.

If Jesus were perfect he would have used the three seashells instead of his shroud.
 
2013-03-29 11:38:07 AM  
www.religioustolerance.org

Dude's beard looked like a Brillo Pad
 
2013-03-29 11:41:07 AM  
 
2013-03-29 11:42:19 AM  
white Jesus or black Jesus?
 
rpm
2013-03-29 11:48:40 AM  

jjwars1: You realize miracles can't be proved? That's why they're called miracles. It wouldn't be a miracle if there were a perfectly rational explanation. It would simply be science. Poof. Miracle=science?


You realize that miracles can be observed, right? That puts them under science. If they aren't observable, they didn't happen. If they did happen, they can be analyzed.
 
2013-03-29 11:53:13 AM  

Spartapuss: Not to defend FOX partially but the shroud's going to be in the news regardless since Benedict apparently signed off on a new media deal as a parting gift. It's possible FOX mentions that but I'm not clicking the link.


The Fox piece doesn't mention a new media deal.  It links to this Telegraph story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9958678/Turin -S hroud-is-not-a-medieval-forgery.html

I've wondered what makes people submit 2nd and 3rd hand articles instead of the original source - especially when it comes to Huffpo or Fox articles.  Why use a source a good number of people are going to find laughable when there is an obvious better/original one?  (I guess it's just to give people like me something to biatch about)
 
2013-03-29 11:54:43 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: Must have been a study last month proving it was fake. This back and forth has been going on for decades now.


Here is the relevant part: "The research linking the shroud to between 280 B.C. and A.D. 220 was published in book by Giulio Fanti..."

There's always a commercial book to accompany such revelations.  This one's by Rizzoli, purveyors of the finest in coffee-table art books. Ooh! Pretty pictures!

It's all about the Je$u$.
 
2013-03-29 11:55:42 AM  

malfist: give me doughnuts: malfist: rpm: malfist: Seriously people. Carbon dating has a resolution of around 5,000 years. Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them.

You dropped a 0. It's accurate to better than 16 years at 5000 years old.

I didn't say it was accurate to 5,000 years. I said carbon dating has a resolution of 5000 years. Technically, it has a resolution of 5,730 years, the halflife of carbon-14. Carbon dating is unlikely to be even close to accurate unless the item is >10K years old.

You said it was accurate to 2000 years by stating "Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them."

This is off by two orders of magnitutde.

I did not say it was accurate to 2000 years, I said samples that were taken 2000 years apart would be equal in apparent age. Which is true, even buy your definition of accuracy.


Please note the bolded, embiggened, and underlined words.
 
2013-03-29 12:02:07 PM  

zarberg: [www.religioustolerance.org image 220x242]

Dude's beard looked like a Brillo Pad


He looks really confused.
 
2013-03-29 12:05:21 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.

This. The geometry of the face alone makes it a fake. I don't know why people are still arguing for authenticity.


i457.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-29 12:05:52 PM  

kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.


rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.
 
2013-03-29 12:09:03 PM  
Somebody in this thread either does not understand the English language, does not understand radiocarbon dating, or both.


/going with both.
 
2013-03-29 12:10:59 PM  

colon_pow: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.


Yet no one who saw him wrote about it. The gospels weren't written until 70 years after his supposed resurrection.

Strange no contemparies of Jesus thought to write about it.
 
2013-03-29 12:14:16 PM  
So it's still shrouded in mystery.
 
2013-03-29 12:16:09 PM  
You realize the radio carbon dating was done to a piece of the shroud that was attached to the original and it was not a piece of the original.
 
rpm
2013-03-29 12:16:37 PM  

kobrakai: I guess I should have been more specific. Prove he walked on water or turned water into wine and I might pay attention.


Step 1: Prove he existed
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Prophet!
 
2013-03-29 12:19:23 PM  

CleanAndPure: colon_pow: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

Yet no one who saw him wrote about it. The gospels weren't written until 70 years after his supposed resurrection.

Strange no contemparies of Jesus thought to write about it.


So many people rose from the dead back then that it wasn't really noteworthy...see also, great floods.
 
2013-03-29 12:24:16 PM  

Jekylman: zarberg: [www.religioustolerance.org image 220x242]

Dude's beard looked like a Brillo Pad

He looks really confused.


Confused Jesus rolled D100 for your sins.

(and on a 51-75 attacks himself for 1d8+str damage)
 
2013-03-29 12:26:14 PM  
Vatican researcher in 2009 said that faint writing on the cloth proves it was used to wrap Jesus' body after his crucifixion.

Jesus wuz here
 
2013-03-29 12:29:45 PM  
If the shroud of turin was used on Jesus, then it proves He didn't resurrect since the image left on it is from decomposition.
 
2013-03-29 12:29:59 PM  

rpm: jjwars1: You realize miracles can't be proved? That's why they're called miracles. It wouldn't be a miracle if there were a perfectly rational explanation. It would simply be science. Poof. Miracle=science?

You realize that miracles can be observed, right? That puts them under science. If they aren't observable, they didn't happen. If they did happen, they can be analyzed.


Yes.  If you observe and analyze a "miracle" you'll find either A: The miracle can't be explained, or B. Science proves how the miracle occurred in which case it isn't a miracle- it's just science.
 
2013-03-29 12:30:51 PM  

0Icky0: kid_icarus: This. Even if it does date back to Jesus's time, that doesn't mean it was Jesus's burial shroud..

Not to mention that the SOT doesn't match the description of the shroud in the Bible. You might think that Christians would have a problem with this.
But you would be wrong.


For real. It's a piece of friggin cloth with the outline of what renaissance painters would later decide White Jesus looks like on it. I would be more convinced if it had "Jeus Wuz Here!" scrawled on the edge with a sharpie.
 
2013-03-29 12:31:50 PM  
OK.....FOX News, eh?  I don't even know how this is a debate anywhere.  The NT talks about the Romans putting this dude in a tomb so his friends could not give him a proper burial.  I guess this is why they just did not dump him in a pit with the rest of the dead criminals that the Romans just threw in there if family members did not claim.  Either way, cremation was standard "burial" prcocedure at the time in Rome specifically because they did not want people desecrating their bodies after they died.  Either way, this dude would not have had a shroud or placed in a tomb.  He would either have been dumped in a pit with other rotting corpses or cremated so nobody could get to his body.  Nevermind how did that big clump of blood that surely would have been dried up by the time he was shrouded get on the shroud.  Nevermind the romans taking the time to place the shroud perfectly on Jesus' face and body very tightly to get that imagery onto it.
 
2013-03-29 12:33:53 PM  
Step 1)  Peer reviewed paper shows Shroud of Turin can't possible be real.

Step 2) Fans of the Shroud find a "scientist" who will say it is real. Usually the words "peer reviewed" are not used during this step.

Step 3) Go to step 1

This thing is about as debunked as possible. The carbon dating says the fabric isn't old enough. The pollen captured in the fabric is from  the wrong region. etc. . .

files.abovetopsecret.com
 
Displayed 50 of 433 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report