SuperHack/SuperHack CD.bin/UFO/TURIN.ZIP/TURIN_1.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-10-29 | 9KB

From: [e-mail] (Pete Porro)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.paranormal
Subject: Re: SHROUD OF TURIN
Date: 12 Oct 93 19:56:05 GMT

SHROUD OF TURIN...

I would be interested in hearing any inforformation that may
have come to light recently concerning the validity of the
shroud located at Turin being the burial cloth of CHRIST.

1)What's you proffessional opinion as to how the image was
formed?

2)What important revealations come from the data collected
by the STURP team in 1978?

3)Do you beleive the overwhelming evidence as to the image
of the Pontius Pilate coin seen covering the right eyelid?

3a)the date of this coin dates the shroud to between the
minting dates of these coins between ad 26 and ad 31.

Any thoughts, comments, sources for further research would
be greatly appreciated.

FROM:    RAY WELCH   (JBWF42A)

Carbon-14 tests date the linen as being woven from plants
that grew in the 14th Century; after that, as far as I am
concerned, Sindinology needs to become part of that small
corner of Art History devoted to famous frauds.  What made
the "image" then is removed from the realm of the miraculous
to the technological.  Still no firm answer, but a number of
medievally-available methods are possibilities, I hear. RW


FROM:    TON GONSALVES JR.   (PXRR66A)

Dan,

  The Roman Catholic Church has made the official statement
that the shroud is NOT authentic - that is was created some
time around 1200 ad.  <figure may be a little off.>  This
was determined by carbon dating after the church `finally'
relinquised the square inch <or so> necessary to date it.
In earlier tests, they were unwilling to provide the piece
but had a change of heart.  The final analysis was done by
scientists who `didn't have an axe to grind' <so to speak> -
scientists of various random denominations with various
levels of conviction <religious belief>.  It was a TRUE
independent study with no focus on scientist's beliefs.

  The church's position is that it is still okay to accept
the shroud as a `religious relic' even though it is a fraud
because it does <in essence> symblify the death and burial
of Christ and because it is a part of Christian history even
in it's true context as a fraud.

  Sorry, I can't give you a reference <in particular> but
it was well covered in the press and publications at the
time when the RCC made the public statements.
  Hope this helps.


FROM:    MANNY CALERO   (HHPF19B)

Hey listen, it is true that the dating test concluded that
it was constructed around 1200AD. But if you read about it,
the shroud was almost burned prior to that.  The piece of
cloth used to date it was from the outside, it could have
been something added to fix it after the fire.  As to how it
was created, I don't know, I missed it by about 1,975 years!


FROM:    DON SRAIL   (NGHD87A)

One of my instructors at Bible College was Dr. Gary
Habermas (sold him my mom's old Dodge) who was big on
promoting the authenticity of the shroud. He co-authored a
couple of books on the subject, and is considered an expert.
The last I heard, he now admits it's a fraud. He owes me an
apology because I never agreed with him at old MIB, and told
him some day it would prove false. Gary - I'm waiting!


FROM:    TON GONSALVES JR.   (PXRR66A)

Manny,

  While I can appreciate your religious enthusiasm, I think
you will find that a conclussion was drawn - by the church -
not just based on the carbon dating but on a lot of related
data.  Obviously, the church would `rather' have found a
shread <no pun intended> of evidence to `support' it.  Also,
it was "burned" `after' it's fabrication in <1200?>. Tony RI


FROM:    ROGER STEGMAN   (NBFB45A)

just poking my nose in here on this subject.
I read an artical in a POPULAR PHOTOGRAMHY MAGAZINE from the
late 70s or early 80s that gave one possible means of the
shroud being created in the middle ages.  The artical used
the burial materials of the time. the used a statue for the
demonstration. they held the cloth to the statue and spred
the solution over the cloth. Where the cloth was held away
from the body or face, light areas developed. where the skin
was in contact, the colors was dark (working from memory).
all that is required is a body that has the wounds of the
right type and location.  The method of hanging on the cross
in the roman style might have been still known at the later
supposed date of the shroud.
just my two cents.


FROM:    ROBERT KALIN   (TRCW17A)

The 14C dating of the shroud definitely places this piece in
the 14th century.  As for the possible methods which
produced the shroud, one possible method is relief (in which
a wood carving is produced as a posative and the woven
material placed over it and rubbed with oils and the
appropriate other markings placed where they belong).  As a
member of the radiocarbon research group at the University
of Arizona when we dating the shroud, many discussions
centered around the origin of the shroud after we dated it.
If there is further interest, I can put some one in contact
with the priciple invistigator of the project at Arizona.
It is a forgone conclusion that the shroud is definitely
from the 14th century.  RMK


FROM:    MARK MCCONAUGHY   (PWGR14A)

A repost of an old note on the shroud that is relevant to
this discussion.

     The C-14 tests were accelerator dates run directly on
the fabric of the shroud.  They dated ca. 1350 A.D.  This
is not surprising since the Catholic church had a confession
from an artist of this time that he had manufactured the
shroud.  His confession has been largely ignored by those
trying to prove it is genuine.

    Several other items indicate the shroud is a clever
painting/fake.  The fingers of the hand have been abnormally
extended to cover the pubic area of the image -- a
concession to the moral sensibilities of the
time.   There is a claim by one of the original shroud team
researchers that hematite was used to make part of the
image.

     The image itself is of a later day view of Christ, not
 one of the early forms.  This also suggests it was a fake
 made in the image of its day.


FROM:    MARK MCCONAUGHY   (PWGR14A)

 Marie,

    The fingers of the hands cannot be distended by nails in
the wrist of an individual.  At best, the wrist might have
been enlarged.  The fingers on the shroud are inordinately
long for the size of hand depicted.

     The shroud was being exhibited for fees ca. 1357.
Henri de Poitiers, a French Bishop, investigated it.  His
work resulted in the shroud being taken off of display.
Later, when it was reexhibited after Henri had been replaced
by another bishop, Pierre d'Arcis, Pierre was
prompted to write a letter to Pope Clement VII re Henri's
investigation. This letter warns Pope Clement about the
authenticity of the shroud and indicates the cloth was
"cunningly painted...." "...the truth being attested by the
artist who had painted it...." Clement issued a Papal Bull
allowing exhibition of the cloth, but that it was to be
advertised only as a "copy or representation."

     STURP's (Shroud of Turin Research Project) Xray
fluorescence tests of the image revealed inorganic calcium
and iron rather evenly distributed across the image.

    Walter McCrone, a well-known forensic microanalysist,
took 33 tape samples from both image and non-image areas of
the shroud. A "blind" study of the tapes was made.  Ten from
non-image areas of the cloth failed to reveal any pigments.
Nineteen from the image and blood-stained areas had
evidence of iron oxide (hematite).  His conclusion, the
image of the shroud was painted.   STURP did not like his
conclusions and kicked him off the team of researchers.
They said that hematite images should be redder than the
yellowish stains found on the shroud.

Unfortunately, the color of hematite varies from yellow to
red depending on the amount of hydration.  Thus, the
yellowish image could be hematite in spite of STURP's
statements.

     A nice summary account of the shroud's history, the
artists confession, and STURP's investigations (if you don't
feel like reading their book on the subject) is found in
"The Shroud of Turin: Probably the Work of a 14th Century
Artist of Forger" by Robert A. Wild, in Biblical Archaeology
Review March/April 1984 (Vol. X, No. 2), pp. 30-46.

(end of small collection. Gee first day back, and I got to do something?) I've
been netmailing John Hicks back and forth wondering what happened to the
echoes. Finally I discovered all the packets for a week, in the Password
Verified Directory. Right where they were supposed to be! Of course it took me
over a week to discover that I needed the directory, so about two weeks worth,
were downloaded to a non-existant DIR and disappeared. Oh well, I think I've
got it now?) The above is from an old thread on Prodigy when I used to read
Archaeology there. One of my hobbies.

--
Pete Porro - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]