Shroud of Turin authentic, Italian scientists, Created by flash of supernatural light, Not medieval forgery, Huge burst of energy at Resurrection of Christ
“Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.”…Luke 2:10-14
“Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”…First Corinthians 1:25
I bring you good tidings.
From the Daily Mail December 21, 2011.
“Turin Shroud ‘was created by flash of supernatural light’: It couldn’t be a medieval forgery, say scientists”
“The image on the Turin Shroud could not be the work of medieval forgers but was instead caused by a supernatural ‘flash of light’, according to scientists.
Italian researchers have found evidence that casts doubt on claims that the relic – said to be the burial cloth of Jesus – is a fake and they suggest that it could, after all, be authentic.
Sceptics have long argued that the shroud, a rectangular sheet measuring about 14ft by 3ft, is a forgery dating to medieval times.
Scientists in Italy believe the kind of technology needed to create the Shroud of Turin simply wasn’t around at the time that it was created
Scientists from Italy’s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development spent years trying to replicate the shroud’s markings.
They have concluded only something akin to ultraviolet lasers – far beyond the capability of medieval forgers – could have created them.
This has led to fresh suggestions that the imprint was indeed created by a huge burst of energy accompanying the Resurrection of Christ.
‘The results show a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,’ the scientists said.”
“Carbon dating tests in 1988 dated it from between 1260 and 1390 – implying it was a fake.
Scientists have since claimed that contamination over the ages from patches, water damage and fire, was not taken sufficiently into account In 1999, two Israeli scientists said plant pollen found on the Shroud supported the view that it comes from the Holy Land.
There have been numerous calls for further testing but the Vatican has always refused.
The image of the bearded man on the shroud must therefore have been created by ‘some form of electromagnetic energy (such as a flash of light at short wavelength)’, their report concludes. But it stops short of offering a non-scientific explanation.”
From Citizen Wells April 23, 2011.
“What I am about to present is intended primarily for the Doubting Thomases out there. First some observations. Jesus was born in the Middle East. His skin color, neither lilly white or black, was average. He was born into a lowly existence and therefore could speak to everyone regardless of status. His message is simple and true. I can find no fault with it. He was crucified. No other method of death would have gotten the attention of humans. If that is not enough for you, I have studied the Shroud of Turin for years. I believe that it is real.”
“With the passing of a generation of research and development, science may now be able to move beyond the question of authenticity and prove some of the most startling events in history, while disproving the results of the Shroud’s controversial carbon dating. Mark Antonacci, author of The Resurrection of the Shroud, the most comprehensive and substantive book ever written on the subject, and Art Lind, a retired physicist from McDonnell Douglas Aerospace and the Boeing Company, have devised a series of tests and experiments that will test what they consider to be the most likely explanation of the Shroud’s images and unprecedented features, while explaining the cloth’s aberrant carbon dating. Scientific tests and experiments utilizing nuclear reactors and accelerator mass spectrometers could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:”
- Particle radiation irradiated the Shroud.
- The particle radiation emanated from the length, width, and depth of the body wrapped within the cloth.
- The event occurred in the 1st Century.
- The event happened in Jesus’s burial tomb.
I have been in the process of gathering data for another report on the Shroud of Turin. Reporting from the mainstream media has never been more suspect. In the midst of doing more research, I watched a show on the Shroud on the National Geo channel. The information in the show, while purported to be from all viewpoints, was heavily laced with professional skeptics (professional debunkers) and absurd and outdated references to theories of the image being painted on. This further strengthened my resolve to present the facts.
Here is some of the information.
From Shroud Story.
“Carbon 14 and the Shroud of Turin”
“Biggest Radiocarbon Dating Mistake Ever
Photomicrograph of fibers from warp segment of carbon 14 sample. It is chemically unlike the rest of the shroud. That is a problem.
In January, 2005, things changed. An article appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta, which proved that the carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin was flawed because the sample used was invalid. Moreover, this article, by Raymond N. Rogers, a well-published chemist and a Fellow of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, explained why the Shroud of Turin was much older. The Shroud of Turin was at least twice as old as the radiocarbon date, and possibly 2000 years old.
Peer-reviewed scientific journals are important. It is the way scientists normally report scientific findings and theories. Articles submitted to such journals are carefully reviewed for adherence to scientific methods and the absence of speculation and polemics. Reviews are often anonymous. Facts are checked and formulas are examined. The review procedure sometimes takes months to complete, as it did for Rogers.
It was Nature, another prestigious peer-reviewed journal, that in 1989, reported that carbon 14 dating ‘proved’ the shroud was a hoax. Rogers found no fault with the article in Nature. Nor did he find fault with the quality of the carbon 14 dating. He defended it. What Rogers found was that the carbon 14 sample was taken from a mended area of the Shroud that contained significant amounts of newer material. This was not the fault of the radiocarbon laboratories. But it did show that the carbon dating was invalid.
Immediately after the publication of Rogers’ paper, Nature published a commentary by scientist-journalist Philip Ball. “Attempts to date the Turin Shroud are a great game,” he wrote, “but don’t imagine that they will convince anyone . . . The scientific study of the Turin Shroud is like a microcosm of the scientific search for God: it does more to inflame any debate than settle it.” Later in his commentary Ball added, “And yet, the shroud is a remarkable artifact, one of the few religious relics to have a justifiably mythical status. It is simply not known how the ghostly image of a serene, bearded man was made.”
Yellow dye can be seen from spliced thread. Newer material was dyed with alizarin from madder root to match age-yellowed older thread.
Ball, who understood the chemistry of the Shroud of Turin images, rejected a notion popularized by conspiracy theorists that Leonardo da Vinci created the Shroud’s image using primitive photography. He called the idea flaky. He also debunked the sometimes reported speculation that the image was “burned into the cloth by some kind of release of nuclear energy” from Jesus’ body. This he said was wild.
Almost all serious Shroud of Turin researchers agree with Ball on these points. When flaky and wild ideas appear in newspaper articles or on television, as they often do, scientists cringe. Rogers referred to those who held such views as being part of the “lunatic fringe” of Shroud research. But Rogers was just as critical of those who, without the benefit of solid science, declared the Shroud of Turin a fake. They, too, were part of the lunatic fringe.
The idea that the Shroud of Turin had been mended in the area from which the carbon 14 samples had been taken had been floating around for some time. But no one paid much attention. In 1998, Turin’s scientific adviser, Piero Savarino, suggested, “extraneous substances found on the samples and the presence of extraneous thread (left over from ‘invisible mending’ routinely carried on in the past on parts of the cloth in poor repair)” might have accounted for an error in the carbon 14 dating. Longtime shroud researchers Sue Benford and Joe Marino independently developed the same idea and explored it with several textile experts and Ronald Hatfield of the radiocarbon dating firm Beta Analytic. The art of invisible reweaving, Benford and Marino discovered, was commonly used in the Middle Ages to repair tapestries. Why not the shroud, they thought? They believed they saw evidence of it.
Photomicrograph of fibers from the center of the radiocarbon sample in water. Gum material is swelling and detaching from fibers. Chemical tests show that dye is yellow alizarin from madder root complexed with alum, a common mordant. Several cotton fibers are also visible. Cotton, alizarin and gum are only found in the C14 sample area of the shroud.
But the skeptically minded Rogers did not agree. He had already debunked every other argument so far offered to explain why the carbon 14 dating might be wrong. According to Ball, “Rogers thought that he would be able to ‘disprove [the mending] theory in five minutes’.” Instead he found clear evidence of discreet mending. He also showed, with chemistry, that the shroud was at least thirteen hundred years old. And he proved, beyond any doubt, that the sample used in 1988 was chemically unlike the rest of the shroud. The samples were invalid. The 1988 tests were thus meaningless.”