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 89
    More: Interesting, Shroud of Turin, carbon datings  
•       •       •

14922 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Mar 2013 at 8:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-29 08:32:29 AM  
8 votes:
How fortunate that Fox can get the Shroud of Turin in the news, just in time for Easter!
2013-03-29 12:10:59 PM  
4 votes:

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 10:10:26 AM  
4 votes:

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.
2013-03-29 09:01:28 AM  
4 votes:
Here's what's wrong with the Shroud:

1. The man is tall and thin, most men of the times had short stocky physiques;

2. His face is oval and elongate, most men of that place and time had round wide faces;

3. The nose is straight and long, most men of that place had short wide noses;

4. He has a high square forehead and a high hairline, most men of that place had a low hairline and rounded forehead;

5. He wears his hair shoulder length, most men of that place and time wore their hair about 1" long at most;

6. He wears a long beard, and most men of that place and time cropped their beards shorter than their hair, 1/2" on average;

7. Both the hair and the beard are straight, most men of that place and time had curly hair;

8. The forearms are abnormally long in proportion to the rest of the body, but the forelegs are normal in size, and it is nowhere written that Jesus suffered any such deformity;

9.  The reverse view of the body is 1/2" inch longer than the front view, and curvature of the cloth does not seem to account for this inconsistency.

Everyone who wrote about Jesus considered him important, and no one mentions anywhere that he looked any different from the common men of his place and time.  When the Romans came to take him, they had to ask who he was, which proves it even more conclusively.  Jesus did not look any different from the average man of his place and time, the facts do not support any other conclusion.
2013-03-29 08:56:39 AM  
4 votes:
The most remarkable thing would be that they had a few yards of cloth woven with an 11th century technique that far in advance.

Seriously, the type of loom required to produce this linen fabric didn't exist until much later. You don't need to go any further. The only reason to try to prove it's older is cognitive dissonance.
2013-03-29 08:52:55 AM  
4 votes:
A made-up story about a hoax artifact, posted by a major news site on a religious holiday? Why, that can in no way be a ratings grab!
2013-03-29 08:49:40 AM  
4 votes:
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.
2013-03-29 08:48:55 AM  
4 votes:
Fanti told the paper he rejects the conclusion of carbon dating tests conducted in 1988 that bolstered the theory the shroud was made in the 13th or 14th century in a medieval forgery.

Wanting to believe doesn't make it true.
2013-03-29 08:05:35 AM  
4 votes:
The Vatican has never confirmed the authenticity of the shroud

Because that is something that the Vatican somehow has the authority to do?
rpm
2013-03-29 09:29:18 AM  
3 votes:

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.
2013-03-29 09:18:24 AM  
3 votes:

Sgygus: Fanti told the paper he rejects the conclusion of carbon dating tests conducted in 1988 that bolstered the theory the shroud was made in the 13th or 14th century in a medieval forgery.

Wanting to believe doesn't make it true.


well there IS  a bit of a problem trying to carbon-date the shorud being as how A) its been repaired a gew times in its exitence using then-contemporary materials  and B) It was very nearly destoryed in a fire that burned the church holding it to the ground, thus depositing enough soot on it to make radio-carbon dating essentially useless.   Personally its a big "meh" for me,  even if it was contemporaneous with the historical existance of Jesus it still proves absolutely nothing, and even if you could conclusively prov it was once wrapped around the real Jesus' body, so what?  Christianity's validity or lack there of should be determined by what you think of the things Jesus had to say, not the existence of absence of "woo-wo" relics
2013-03-29 08:47:22 AM  
3 votes:
Two words missing there were "peer" and "reviewed".


/Padova is awesome
2013-03-29 08:22:19 AM  
3 votes:

PainInTheASP: Jesus was an alien.


Possibly, I mean we've shown just in the last 8 years that humans tend to lack any public empathy and compassion, so maybe he was alien to this world

...or maybe Americans are just aliens to this world

/study it out
2013-03-30 05:51:31 PM  
2 votes:

GeneralJim: The formation of the image falsifies the hypothesis that the Shroud was created by medieval forgers.


That's clearly not been ruled out. Depending on whose account you believe, there may or may not be deposition of iron oxide on the fabric, as opposed to an enzymatic process such as the Maillard reaction. In either case, the image could have an entirely prosaic cause consistent with 14th century forgers motivated by cash, which is a much stronger likelihood than the magical resurrection suntan that Shroud fans seem to espouse.
2013-03-30 05:45:38 PM  
2 votes:

GeneralJim: Those hundreds or thousands of people were impressed enough to start a church essentially worshiping him. That should count for something.


By that reasoning, Thor, Zeus, Osiris and Vishnu are every bit as real as Jesus.
2013-03-29 12:42:47 PM  
2 votes:

s2s2s2: Who? Please show their work.


His name is Nicholas Allen, and here you go http://www.reviewofreligions.org/385/is-the-shroud-of-turin-a-medieva l -photograph-a-critical-examination-of-the-theory/

And here's the image he made

www.reviewofreligions.org

Nothing but a camera obscura, a piece of cloth and some photosensitive chemicals
2013-03-29 10:06:15 AM  
2 votes:
FFS just LOOK at the thing. Any non-moran can see it's not real.
rpm
2013-03-29 09:53:57 AM  
2 votes:

malfist: 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.


Have you looked at the calibration curve? It's accurate with 16 years at 6000 years old. The resolution is dependent on how accurately you measure the ratios, it's independent of the half-life. (well, sorta. it is dependent on the uncertainty in the half-life).
2013-03-29 09:20:31 AM  
2 votes:

Magorn: Sgygus: Fanti told the paper he rejects the conclusion of carbon dating tests conducted in 1988 that bolstered the theory the shroud was made in the 13th or 14th century in a medieval forgery.

Wanting to believe doesn't make it true.

well there IS  a bit of a problem trying to carbon-date the shorud being as how A) its been repaired a gew times in its exitence using then-contemporary materials  and B) It was very nearly destoryed in a fire that burned the church holding it to the ground, thus depositing enough soot on it to make radio-carbon dating essentially useless.   Personally its a big "meh" for me,  even if it was contemporaneous with the historical existance of Jesus it still proves absolutely nothing, and even if you could conclusively prov it was once wrapped around the real Jesus' body, so what?  Christianity's validity or lack there of should be determined by what you think of the things Jesus had to say, not the existence of absence of "woo-wo" relics


Even if it was real and authenticated, the shroud just proves that he lived and died. It doesn't prove he respawned.
2013-03-29 09:11:51 AM  
2 votes:

somedude210: Possibly, I mean we've shown just in the last 8 years that humans tend to lack any public empathy and compassion, so maybe he was alien to this world

...or maybe Americans are just aliens to this world

/study it out


For your consideration:

All of the "Abrahamic" faiths, (Christians, Jewish, Muslims,) harken back to the same god. Is it any wonder we're a war-like people? The overwhelming majority of human beings actually worship a deity less responsible than your average teenage babysitter. If you're of the Christian or Jewish variety, then you believe that your god actually set the rules up so that his own son would have to be murdered in a savage ritual for human beings to overcome the curse he collectively bestowed upon them for the results of his own negligence. For it was he, according to your holy texts that allowed an agent of evil into paradise in the first place. it was he who dictated the savage, cruel terms and conditions for "salvation". If you're a Muslim, then it was he who cursed 72 virgins with having to tolerate your sandy ass for eternity for the great service involving your typical murderous religion-based savagery.

Religion: it's really just for savages.
2013-03-29 09:09:20 AM  
2 votes:

olddinosaur: Here's what's wrong with the Shroud:

1. The man is tall and thin, most men of the times had short stocky physiques;

2. His face is oval and elongate, most men of that place and time had round wide faces;

3. The nose is straight and long, most men of that place had short wide noses;

4. He has a high square forehead and a high hairline, most men of that place had a low hairline and rounded forehead;

5. He wears his hair shoulder length, most men of that place and time wore their hair about 1" long at most;

6. He wears a long beard, and most men of that place and time cropped their beards shorter than their hair, 1/2" on average;

7. Both the hair and the beard are straight, most men of that place and time had curly hair;

8. The forearms are abnormally long in proportion to the rest of the body, but the forelegs are normal in size, and it is nowhere written that Jesus suffered any such deformity;

9.  The reverse view of the body is 1/2" inch longer than the front view, and curvature of the cloth does not seem to account for this inconsistency.

Everyone who wrote about Jesus considered him important, and no one mentions anywhere that he looked any different from the common men of his place and time.  When the Romans came to take him, they had to ask who he was, which proves it even more conclusively.  Jesus did not look any different from the average man of his place and time, the facts do not support any other conclusion.


Another Fun Fact, until the shroud was "Discovered" in the 1300s Jesus was usually depicted as you described above, afterwards, the now traditional image of Jesus became the norm.

/Wait does that mean the artist of the shroud was the worlds first internet troll?
2013-03-29 09:05:14 AM  
2 votes:
As a Christian, let me say that the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has no effect whatsoever on my faith.  It may be a total intentional fake.  It may be the real shroud of Jesus.

It would make sense that someone kept his shroud.  Even if he didn't rise from the dead, someone may have taken his shroud.  It may have the image on it from divine zapping power, or it may be natural, or it may be fake.

I've never quite understood how proving it wasn't from Jesus's time disproves Christianity or how proving it was from Jesus's time does prove Christianity.

It's a fascinating artifact, but it has no theological implications.
2013-03-29 09:04:51 AM  
2 votes:
Oh Christ. I couln't believe no one was getting the reference, here I'm the one who completely farked up.

i218.photobucket.com
2013-03-29 08:54:14 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2013-03-29 08:53:19 AM  
2 votes:
Even if they could date it to that time period, there's no way they can ever identify who left the "image" on the cloth. It's all a waste of time.

They didn't believe the carbon dating, but I bet they will believe this in a hurry.
2013-03-29 08:52:35 AM  
2 votes:
I'm pretty sure the shroud exists.
2013-03-29 08:52:11 AM  
2 votes:
i think they're just trying to get it to a point where pointing out their fantasy can be labeled 'The War on Shrouds'.
2013-03-29 08:45:38 AM  
2 votes:
Must have been a study last month proving it was fake. This back and forth has been going on for decades now.
2013-04-02 11:08:28 AM  
1 votes:
Ready for round two?....It's real dammit. and you're a fool to think otherwise. dickheads
/praise Jebus
2013-04-02 08:42:10 AM  
1 votes:

GeneralJim: wiredroach: And again, the "3D" effect isn't magical--it's just a byproduct of this type of shading when used as a bump or displacement map in 3D software. The close-up images of the faces in the article I linked show that the shroud image and the recreation both use shading based on elevation. Either will exhibit the "3D" effect if used as a bump map. I don't know why you think that the shroud image producing this effect is somehow proof that some advanced technology must have been employed to create the markings on the cloth.
All right, I'll explain it one more time.  Please try to follow along.
It's not a 3-D effect.  It is a 3-D encoding.  The density, or "image flux," for want of a better term, is proportional to the distance of the cloth from the body.  The effect is exactly that as if every atom in the body gave off a set amount of "darkening" which then reacted with the cloth.  Here, maybe these will help...Watch this video for information on the 3-D imagingWatch this video for further information on the cloth positioning informationWatch this video for other information upon which I am not as informed, primarily medical


There is no such thing as 3D encoding on a 2D image!!!!
2013-04-02 01:59:23 AM  
1 votes:
Just in case there's any doubt about the mythical 3D properties of the Shroud, here's a quick and dirty comparison I did, using the greyscale portraits from the article detailing the Italian re-creation of the overlay transfer technique.

I did this using displacement maps in Cinema 4D to translate the greyscale into 3D geometry. I applied about 3 pixels of Gaussian blur to the images in Photoshop to smooth out some of the noise; otherwise they're untouched. Both exhibit three-dimensionality consistent with a human face, so there's nothing magical about the Shroud in this respect. The shroud's looks a bit more realistic to me, but that's probably because its image from the article is less contrasty than the re-creation's, and will therefore have more gradual transitions in elevation.

drewblood.com

The shroud has pigment on it; it doesn't need to have an exotic origin to have "3D" properties, and radiocarbon dating places it squarely in the 1200s - 1400s. It's a fake.
2013-04-01 12:01:14 PM  
1 votes:

GeneralJim: No, look at what I have said. I have ruled out it being a MEDIEVAL forgery, as long as you'll grant the lack of UV or higher frequency lasers and 3-D imaging computers in medieval times.

 
You haven't proven that those technologies are required to create the image on the shroud. You just keep asserting that they are. Tests of the cloth have convincingly shown that there are pigment-like materials on the cloth which doesn't require lasers or computers to apply.
 

GeneralJim: Okay, if you skip the facts about the nature of the image made, it is theoretically possible to create an image related to the closeness of the cloth to skin when draped over it. Two questions come to mind: First, why in the HELL would that be the objective of someone making a fraudulent religious relic? Second, this was thought of by the scientists in the 1970s -- they tried having artists aim for the "correct" result, and they tried using a computer to generate the image, and nothing worked. While it is possible that medieval relic forgers were more talented than modern artists, they would not have any way to check their work. And, again, one has to ask why they would be aiming for something they could not see. If you found a CD alleged to be of Jesus' voice, and claimed that it was not from the time of Jesus, but a medieval forgery, it would be a very similar situation. How would medieval forgers make a playable CD in the first place?


Using a bas-relief type of sculpture to transfer the image to the shroud would actually be a fairly practical way to simulate the desired effect of Jesus' image, especially if the forger didn't possess strong drafting skills. It's an even better way to mass-produce shrouds if you're in the shroud-forging business.
 
Here's an entirely prosaic recreation based on this idea:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1218457/Shroud-Turin- re plica-proves-medieval-techniques-make-relic-say-scientists.html
 
And again, the "3D" effect isn't magical--it's just a byproduct of this type of shading when used as a bump or displacement map in 3D software. The close-up images of the faces in the article I linked show that the shroud image and the recreation both use shading based on elevation. Either will exhibit the "3D" effect if used as a bump map. I don't know why you think that the shroud image producing this effect is somehow proof that some advanced technology must have been employed to create the markings on the cloth.
2013-04-01 11:45:34 AM  
1 votes:

GeneralJim: Sorry, that's not going to make a tint like the ones on the shroud.


Blatant delusion.
 
Precision is what's needed, not vast amounts of power.  Vast amounts of power end up doing one thing, like burning directly through the cloth.
 
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
Yeah, totally unlike the shroud.
/nimrod
2013-04-01 11:16:47 AM  
1 votes:

weirdneighbour: Please never respond to one of my threads.


here here, please don't come into another one of my threads
 
/subby
//goddamn, you need a life
2013-04-01 10:46:52 AM  
1 votes:
GeneralJim: 
If you are stupid enough to think that medieval relic forgers had UV lasers and 3-D rendering computers, you need to do the honorable thing, and go drown yourself.  If you think that medieval forgers found out some other way to "print" those precise images, image printing that Western science was unable to reproduce until 2011, images which could not be viewed without a computer and reasonable software, and which the computer technology of the mid-1970s was unable to generate, the cure is the same.
 
Wow. This is some weapon's grade stupidity you got here.
 
Let's note that I never mentioned UV Lasers. You did (endlessly). This is typical of how you think science works. You found one tidbit of science you like and you are now fixated on it ... convinced that it represents fact. Reading far more into it than is justified by the results.
 
Here is the crux of the matter: Just because these scientists were able to approximate the forgery with UV lasers that this does not mean that a forgery of the Shroud of Turin must be made this way.
 
The fact that you cannot comprehend this simple fact demonstrates the depth of your stupidity. Your inability to see things objectively. Your tunnel vision created by your preconceived notions.
 
The forging of religious artifacts was a well known and profitable industry at the time and there is no way to know all the methods they may have tried.
 
You are making the absolute claim that they could not have made the forgery. You cannot know this ... it is an illogical and irrational position.
2013-04-01 09:27:20 AM  
1 votes:
Wow, GeneralJim is a farking nutjob.
2013-04-01 03:06:37 AM  
1 votes:
GeneralJim: Ididn't make the charts.  They stand, unless you can find the data showing that they do not represent real data.  Of course, you'd have to say WHICH data, since both NASA and NOAA have been changing data like crazy.

I'm actually gonna bookmark this thread so I can link to this post in the future for proof of the futility of arguing with you, GeneralJim
 
If you were just refusing to back up your argument despite the burden of proof being squarely on you for making such a strong claim (that NASA and NOAA are faking their data), that would be enough for me to laugh at you and call you crazy. But you aren't just saying that -  you follow up "I don't need evidence! If you can't prove me wrong, I'm right!" with "Also, my standards for what I'll accept as proof are literally impossible to reach, as I'll disregard any data you link to from NASA or NOAA as having been changed!".
 
It's amazing. Utterly amazing.   You're essentially admitting it is impossible for anyone to convince you that you're wrong, no matter what. Evidence to the contrary will be dismissed as having been doctored by those evil conspirators.
2013-03-31 11:40:46 AM  
1 votes:

GeneralJim: mooseyfate: GeneralJim is the second coming of Bevets.It's the time for miracles.  Try sticking your head up a rabbit's ass, and checking for eggs. Happy Easter!


Rabbits and eggs. Yet another stupid thing Christians came up with. Seems the only thing Christianity is actually good at us getting people to believe the stupidest, most ridiculously obvious fake bullshiat in the history if man.

/no really, he caused the Red Sea to part
//seriously, he walked on water
///I shiat you not, she was a married virgin and she gave birth to the son of God
//Okay, for realsies this time, I'm totally serious: Jesus ascended to heaven through this body-bag. Check it out and leave donations to his glory at the door, I'll make sure he gets it
/Christians will believe anything. People in general will believe anything
//Just look at Scientology
2013-03-31 11:21:25 AM  
1 votes:
GeneralJim is the second coming of Bevets.
2013-03-31 10:41:38 AM  
1 votes:

GeneralJim: burning_bridge: If you had faith, you wouldn't need it to be real. It could be the obvious forgery it is and god would still be god. But you need proof, it seems.
You're being a very choice ass.  It doesn't matter to me, other than being of historical interest, whether or not the Shroud is genuine.  If it's an "obvious forgery" as you suggest, how about you explain how medieval forgers charred only the outside of the fibers to make the 2-D image on the cloth, and how the image decodes easily into a 3-D image?
It appears to ME that you just assume that the Shroud is fake, because your faith requires it to be fake.  And, you don't even bother to read what has been posted.  Seriously, is that scientific?


There is nothing special or magical or divine required in the 2D image to allow it to be scanned and rendered as a 3D image.  It is the rendering software that does this!  And it can do this to ANY 2-dimensional.  There is no such thing as 3-dimensional coding within a 2-d image.
2013-03-31 10:13:53 AM  
1 votes:

GeneralJim: wiredroach: GeneralJim: Those hundreds or thousands of people were impressed enough to start a church essentially worshiping him. That should count for something.

By that reasoning, Thor, Zeus, Osiris and Vishnu are every bit as real as Jesus.
No, they have as much backing as God, or Jehovah.  Jesus was a real person, and the religion was started by people who traveled and lived with him.  That is not true of those you name. It is, however, rather similar to Buddhism.


bullshiat.  100 percent unequivocal bullshiat.  Paul (arguably but most likely) started Christianity, and by his own admission he never met or even laid eyes on "Jesus".
rpm
2013-03-30 12:21:01 PM  
1 votes:

GeneralJim: No, I think it's something ELSE that makes me important, just like your black text doesn't make you wrong.  Now, what proof do we have of most ANYTHING from 2KYA?  Waddayah want, video?


Mutually independent corroborating accounts would be a start.
2013-03-30 03:10:47 AM  
1 votes:
The Vatican will NEVER vouch for it's authenticity... If it were later proven to be a fake, they would never live it down, and their "power" and authority would be questioned too much...

Besides, fake or real, it obviously gives some people much to do in order to get the shroud back into the mainstream media every stinking year about this time...
2013-03-30 02:39:50 AM  
1 votes:
This was one of several shrouds that existed.  It was business.  How do you get pilgrims to come on journeys to your church?  There was like three heads of St. John or something.  Sometimes multiples of the same artifact were declared authentic by the Catholic church.  Bishop Pierre d'Arcis of that diocese said it was fake and that his predecessor who was Bishop of the area when it showed up had also said it was fake and even questioned the artist who made it.

Every year around Easter right-wing news media drag it out and play this stupid game of "new evidence suggests it IS real!"  Even if you are Christian, you'd have to be a drooling retard to believe this crap.
2013-03-30 02:11:38 AM  
1 votes:

ReverendJynxed: Surool: colon_pow: Ed Grubermann: 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.

are claimed to have seen him afterwards. Claims are not proof.

ever seen a court room?  eye witnesses are powerful evidence.

Actually, the existance of the eyewitnesses is merely a claim at this point. Remember... the Bible is the claim, and can not be used as proof of itself.

So we haven't gone to mars with probes and rovers. After all we cannot take the word of NASA and the video THEY produce cannot be used as proof itself.


Not too bright, eh Rev?
2013-03-30 02:05:00 AM  
1 votes:

s2s2s2: 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.

No. Because if it was painted, it wouldn't render a 3d image when scanned.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 330x330]

Those shrouds weren't pressed down like your supposition requires.


By the way, there available software that lets any turn a 2D image into a 3D one.  And, by 2D I mean images that are not encoded with 3D elevation data.  So, that lovely green image you posted, it could have been made from any 2D image.
2013-03-30 12:16:36 AM  
1 votes:

fetushead: However, convincing a True Believer of anything antithetical to their established (and perhaps psychologically necessary) belief system is an uphill battle any way you slice it.


Well, I do profess that I don't try to sway the True Believer, by definition that's impossible.

It's the audience at large, the undecided, that we really have the opportunity to catch.

If we debunk each and every topic quickly and thoroughly, do so cleanly and efficiently without getting too deep into it.  Even if we win over people who aren't great on thinking but think," Damn, I'm getting on the smart bus!" I'll call it a win.  It also serves for a better PR route as it's somewhat less aggressive and offensive as a whole.

Plus, educating the audience at large, and a little self enrichment along the way, that's my main function(aside from the obvious, which is entertaining myself).  I'll share what I know, and further read others and research if needed.

I'm all for diggin' deep in a religious thread, as it were, just don't see it as such here.  We've got tangible evidence that is by all accounts, irrelevant to the book.  Something physical to discuss, that's farking rare!

That's an assumption though I suppose.  The shroud of turin as is, is not in the book, correct?(aside from saying "and the body was lain in a shroud" or something)  You'd think something like that would be detailed....IF it were around at the time, an image like that would be a pretty big deal.

/of course that doesn't disqualify someone making one according to spec afterwards if it were in the book
2013-03-29 11:55:25 PM  
1 votes:

GeneralJim: frepnog: That is the only reason the "controversy" continues. It is a medieval fake. Once again, anyone that says otherwise is either a liar or a fool.Really?  So, you have faith that medieval forgers had computers and UV lasers to manufacture relics.  I'd say that makes YOU a liar or a fool.


people.virginia.edu

Interesting article (and thread) but you're falling into this fallacy. Because something similar to the shroud  can be created with a UV laser and computers, does not mean that the shroud was created by a similar mechanism.
2013-03-29 07:45:33 PM  
1 votes:

GeneralJim: WhyteRaven74: Nothing but a camera obscura, a piece of cloth and some photosensitive chemicalsOh, right.  Medieval forgers make a fake Shroud by developing photography.  Very clever.  WTF would they bother?  Get a cloth, rough it up and paint on it -- that always worked in the medieval relic scams.  That's ALMOST as dumb as suggesting that they had computers and UV lasers -- but at least the computer and lasers COULD produce the type of image on the shroud; your idea could not.



WIKI:
The camera obscura has been known to scholars since the time of Mozi and Aristotle.[2] The first surviving mention of the principles behind the pinhole camera or camera obscura belongs to Mozi (Mo-Ti) (470 to 390 BCE), a Chinese philosopher and the founder of Mohism.[3] Mozi referred to this device as a "collecting plate" or "locked treasure room."[4]
The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384 to 322 BCE) understood the optical principle of the pinhole camera.[5] He viewed the crescent shape of a partially eclipsed sun projected on the ground through the holes in a sieve and through the gaps between the leaves of a plane tree. In the 4th century BCE, Aristotle noted that "sunlight travelling through small openings between the leaves of a tree, the holes of a sieve, the openings wickerwork, and even interlaced fingers will create circular patches of light on the ground." Euclid's Optics (ca 300 BCE) presupposed the camera obscura as a demonstration that light travels in straight lines.[6] In the 4th century, Greek scholar Theon of Alexandria observed that "candlelight passing through a pinhole will create an illuminated spot on a screen that is directly in line with the aperture and the center of the candle."


Wasn't a new idea, and Da Vinci loved such gizmo's, even wrote about(or drew) this one in his own works.   It's not an impossible thing as you suggest.
2013-03-29 07:37:02 PM  
1 votes:

GeneralJim: rpm: 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.

Just ask Lazarus...  he was not only dead, he was starting to smell bad, and he got up and walked away.  Personally, I would count resurrection as miraculous.  YMMV.


Okay. Let's ask him. Where is he? Prove that he actually existed. Then we'll talk about his supposed resurrection.
rpm
2013-03-29 07:29:18 PM  
1 votes:

GeneralJim: Just ask LazarusOsiris...  he was not only dead, he was starting to smell bad, and he got up and walked away.  Personally, I would count resurrection as miraculous.  YMMV.


What is the difference in content between your version and mine? Why is mine wrong and yours right? Or, as is more likely, both wrong?
2013-03-29 07:15:36 PM  
1 votes:

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.


Yup. Not to mention, a piece of linen supposedly that old would've disintegrated to dust long ago. There's already been a number of radiocarbon dating tests done on the shroud, the age of it isn't going to suddenly change.
2013-03-29 05:55:16 PM  
1 votes:
Sad that this is still a thing.

There is no way to "prove" that this shroud was used by the Jesus, unless you can go back in time and find him using it.  All this "science" (contrary to widely-accepted methods) can do is say it may be older than previously thought.  So what?  Even if it was used as a death shroud (which it probably wasn't) in the year 30 AD (which it probably wasn't) of a dead Jew (which it probably wasn't)- there were probably a lot of those guys living at the time.  You're telling me this was used by that one guy?  the one there are NO contemporary accounts of- only stories written down decades and centuries after he died?  Who's name certainly wasn't "Jesus Christ", who wasn't born Dec 25th (Pagan holiday), who was either from Nazareth or Bethlehem (we don't know) but was a 6 ft tall white dude?

If there was a way to take bets on this I'd bet the house- I've never seen easier odds.
2013-03-29 04:46:12 PM  
1 votes:

give me doughnuts: 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.

Please note the bolded, embiggened, and underlined words.


It doesn't matter how bold you make them, it's still just plain wrong. You seem to misunderstand what a "half-life" is.

The basics: for any time period, there is a certain well-measured probability that any particular C14 atom will decay into N14. The half-life is the time period such that 50% of the atoms will decay. After another half-life, 50% more decay. And so on.

They don't suddenly decay all at once. You get a smooth exponential curve of the ratio between C14 (which decays) and C12 (which doesn't). The more precisely you can measure the ratio, the more precisely you can say how old the sample is. The resolution "tick" is, theoretically, the decay of a single atom, which in a sample of 10^23 atoms would make the resolution on the order of a tiny fraction of a femtosecond.

In practice you can't measure it that precisely, though it's pretty stunning how close they can get. (That does set the limit on just how far back they can measure the remaining C14 atoms, which goes for 10 or 12 cycles, or about 60,000 years.)

That isn't, however, the source of coarseness. The assumption is the original ratio of C14 to C12 in the sample. The atmosphere is bombarded cosmic rays that turn N14 back into C14 at a measurable, fairly constant rate. To a first approximation, that's a constant through that kind of time span, and we got OK carbon dates out of that.

To a second approximation, there are bursts of cosmic activity, which slightly alter the production. We can calibrate for that by measuring against artifacts of known age (such as parchment scrolls with dates on them, or wood artifacts known to have been made for a particular event). The further back you go, the wider the error bars; at 2000 years it's about +/- 20 years.

THAT is what the real resolution is. The half-life is NOT the resolution; that's just plain wrong.
2013-03-29 03:22:45 PM  
1 votes:

T.rex: most altheist historians still can admit that Jesus was person who actually existed.


[citationneeded.jpg]

Wishful thinking ≠ facts
2013-03-29 02:31:50 PM  
1 votes:
T.rex:
And that said, most altheist historians still can admit that Jesus was person who actually existed.

They are just being polite.
2013-03-29 02:06:39 PM  
1 votes:

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.


are claimed to have seen him afterwards. Claims are not proof.
2013-03-29 01:58:16 PM  
1 votes:

Chach: WanPhat: As a Christian, let me say that the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has no effect whatsoever on my faith.  It may be a total intentional fake.  It may be the real shroud of Jesus.

It would make sense that someone kept his shroud.  Even if he didn't rise from the dead, someone may have taken his shroud.  It may have the image on it from divine zapping power, or it may be natural, or it may be fake.

I've never quite understood how proving it wasn't from Jesus's time disproves Christianity or how proving it was from Jesus's time does prove Christianity.

It's a fascinating artifact, but it has no theological implications.

Well said, although I disagree with the last paragraph IF it is authentic.


if it is real, it is THE ONLY piece of evidence that proves Jesus was real.  Christians NEED it to be real.  That is why even tho they know damn well that it is fake, how it was faked, how old it really is, that people keep "researching" it.

That is the only reason the "controversy" continues.  It is a medieval fake.  Once again, anyone that says otherwise is either a liar or a fool.
2013-03-29 01:45:49 PM  
1 votes:

T.rex: Close2TheEdge: WanPhat: As a Christian, let me say that the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has no effect whatsoever on my faith.  It may be a total intentional fake.  It may be the real shroud of Jesus.

It would make sense that someone kept his shroud.  Even if he didn't rise from the dead, someone may have taken his shroud.  It may have the image on it from divine zapping power, or it may be natural, or it may be fake.

I've never quite understood how proving it wasn't from Jesus's time disproves Christianity or how proving it was from Jesus's time does prove Christianity.

It's a fascinating artifact, but it has no theological implications.

It's the same reason that Young Earth Creationists employ pseudoscience to support their beliefs.  It's not enough that YOU believe in Christianity.  It's important to them that EVERYBODY believes in Christianity.  Even us skeptical atheist types who demand silly things like evidence....and facts.

When faith is not enough, make up shiat.

I'm not sure 'believe' is the right word... Christianity is a faith system... It surely exists... You might just choose not to 'subscribe' to it, but that doesn't change the fact that there's a thing out there called Christianity.

And that said, most altheist historians still can admit that Jesus was person who actually existed.   You might not 'believe' he's the son of the God, with magical powers, though that doesn't mean the Shroud of Turin for sure didn't belong the earthy man known as Jesus Christ.


it did not, and if you purport that it did you are either a liar or a fool.  fact is that "historians" have zero evidence that Jesus was real.  They gave up on trying to prove his (non) existence because believers just won't have it any other way other than he DID exist, but the simple truth is that the chances of biblical or even historical Jesus having been flesh and blood are slim to none.  The religion was pieced together from older crap and given a "modern" spin by including the anti-jewish stance stuff about a savior that the Jews didn't believe in.  A few scraps of writing, written decades or centuries later do not prove a damn thing.  I am sorry that religions based on magic and fairy tales are in fact just that, fairy tales, but shiat is what shiat is.  I am also sorry that humans are often so stupid that they will believe in this crap, but once again shiat is what shiat is.

in the year 2013 it is farking SAD that humans are debating whether or not a magical being rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.  MAGIC IS NOT REAL.  Period.  MAGIC WAS NEVER REAL.  Period.
2013-03-29 01:45:27 PM  
1 votes:
Here's the thing. Suppose Jesus was a real man. Suppose he had some sort of following and became popular in among a group of people, hypothetically a significant number of people. Suppose he dies. Suppose someone, still caught up in his cult of personality (or on its fringes) decides to manufacture a holy relic to keep his movement inspired (or to turn a quick buck among the followers). In that framework, it would not be inconsistent that the shroud dates back to that period.

It would still not be an indication that Jesus was some sort of god incarnate. In fact it would suggest, though not prove, the opposite. It would also be a more statistically likely scenario.

It would, if it could be proven, invalidate the notion that the shroud is the result of some supernatural occurrence.
2013-03-29 12:43:33 PM  
1 votes:

s2s2s2: JasonOfOrillia: Those results, Fanti said, were "false" because of laboratory contamination, the Telegraph reported.

Sounds legit.

It was contaminated.



Did you read your link?

Out of the scientists listed under the contamination section, a few said it might have been contaminated, listing unusual and hypothetical circumstances. Others said they had experimental results indicating contamination, but were later shown to have been lying and were "arrested in 1997 on American soil under allegations of accepting bribes by magazine editors to produce manufactured evidence and false reports"?

Do you have anything to back up your flat statement that "it was contaminated"? At best, your link supports "it may, possibly, hypothetically have been contaminated."
2013-03-29 12:40:16 PM  
1 votes:

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.


Meh. More eyewitnesses have seen Bigfoot, and he ain't real either.
2013-03-29 12:33:53 PM  
1 votes:
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
2013-03-29 12:29:59 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:29:45 PM  
1 votes:
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 11:38:07 AM  
1 votes:
www.religioustolerance.org

Dude's beard looked like a Brillo Pad
2013-03-29 11:34:38 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:14:28 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:11:20 AM  
1 votes:
Why do people of "faith" require all of this "proof"?
2013-03-29 10:49:44 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:20:05 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-03-29 10:03:47 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-03-29 09:28:38 AM  
1 votes:

Close2TheEdge: Yeah, and this might be true too.  But I doubt it.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 409x384]


Wow...  Bat Boy.  They've been using him since the early/mid 80's.  Wouldn't he be in his 40's by now?
rpm
2013-03-29 09:23:26 AM  
1 votes:

s2s2s2: No one has made a forgery that renders a 3D image.


Disapproves
www.biography.com
2013-03-29 09:21:33 AM  
1 votes:

olddinosaur: Everyone who wrote about Jesus considered him important, and no one mentions anywhere that he looked any different from the common men of his place and time.  When the Romans came to take him, they had to ask who he was, which proves it even more conclusively.  Jesus did not look any different from the average man of his place and time, the facts do not support any other conclusion.


1.bp.blogspot.com


1050-1100.
The oldest known crucifix in Denmark, (maybe all of Northern Europe, not sure and can't be bothered to find out).

Actual crown, good abs and if you look closely you can see his defiant look. Thought you might like it.

/picked off some forum somewhere
//that dude is recognizeable
2013-03-29 09:18:35 AM  
1 votes:
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.
2013-03-29 09:16:36 AM  
1 votes:
Now, I'm pretty sure it's a hoax.  I mean, apparently it's more than just the age at play here.

But, you know.  People still have locks of Elvis'es hair.  People collect stuff relating to celebrities and hoard it.  Just say'in.
2013-03-29 09:15:48 AM  
1 votes:

captainstudd: Isn't that blood on the forehead? Can we get some DNA and impregnate someone with a baby Jesus? We can actually play god.


For he is the KWISATZ HADERACH!
2013-03-29 09:12:20 AM  
1 votes:

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

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


Well given as it does belong to them and they do kinda claim to be the spokespeople for its alleged former owner, you might expect them to weigh in.   However to their credit the Vatican takes a very "mythbusters" approach to any claims of miracluous occurances, sacred relics, or appearances of celestial celebrities on household objects
2013-03-29 09:10:57 AM  
1 votes:

WanPhat: As a Christian, let me say that the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has no effect whatsoever on my faith.  It may be a total intentional fake.  It may be the real shroud of Jesus.

It would make sense that someone kept his shroud.  Even if he didn't rise from the dead, someone may have taken his shroud.  It may have the image on it from divine zapping power, or it may be natural, or it may be fake.

I've never quite understood how proving it wasn't from Jesus's time disproves Christianity or how proving it was from Jesus's time does prove Christianity.

It's a fascinating artifact, but it has no theological implications.


It's the same reason that Young Earth Creationists employ pseudoscience to support their beliefs.  It's not enough that YOU believe in Christianity.  It's important to them that EVERYBODY believes in Christianity.  Even us skeptical atheist types who demand silly things like evidence....and facts.

When faith is not enough, make up shiat.
2013-03-29 09:07:16 AM  
1 votes:

PainInTheASP: Jesus was an alien.*


John 18:36:  Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."



*Yup


Like to hear a song about it? Here it go.

2013-03-29 09:01:43 AM  
1 votes:
I'd be hilarious if Pope Francis, being a Jesuit who seems open to reason, decreed it a fake and told everyone to get over it.
2013-03-29 08:58:55 AM  
1 votes:
"Fanti, a Catholic,"

Nice to know that the scientist is impartial.
2013-03-29 08:57:34 AM  
1 votes:

Point02GPA: PainInTheASP: Jesus was an alien.

I think he was Spanish, Mexico wasn't even a country at that time.


No, he was out picking onions.

dollarsandsense.org
2013-03-29 08:54:01 AM  
1 votes:

PsyLord: Or someone that lived around that time.  Who knows.


This. Even if it does date back to Jesus's time, that doesn't mean it was Jesus's burial shroud...it could've been someone's table cloth.
2013-03-29 08:51:10 AM  
1 votes:
Those results, Fanti said, were "false" because of laboratory contamination, the Telegraph reported.

Sounds legit.
2013-03-29 08:48:38 AM  
1 votes:
Or someone that lived around that time.  Who knows.
2013-03-29 08:47:16 AM  
1 votes:
Yeah, and this might be true too.  But I doubt it.

upload.wikimedia.org
2013-03-29 08:45:44 AM  
1 votes:
ansnuclearcafe.org
 
Displayed 89 of 89 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





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