It’s not just the most studied religious relic in history, but it’s the most studied artifact, period. STURP’s testing was the impetus for most of the research performed on the Shroud after 1978, and it was stated in the renowned journal Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology “The Shroud of Turin is the single, most studied artifact in human history” (page 200). They concluded that there was real blood on the cloth, but no paint, dye or pigment that comprised the image, and that it was not made by an artist.
They spent three years collating the data and then published in two dozen scientific peer-reviewed journals.
#3D MODEL OF JESUS SHROUD OF TURIN PLUS#
They performed over one-thousand chemical experiments plus visible, ultraviolet and infrared photography visible, ultraviolet and infrared reflectance spectroscopy x-radiography, thermography, macroscopy, polarization, fluorescent, phase contact and electron microscopy microdensitometry biostereometry, laser microprobe spectroscopy electron energy dispersive spectroscopy and microspectrophotometric transmission spectra. Disciplines included organic and inorganic chemistry, radiography, bacteriology, immunology, volconology, nuclear and molecular physics, entomology, mycology, endocrinology, geochemistry, pathology, hematology, physiology, ethnology, forensic medicine, criminology, photomicrography, aerodynamics, computer technology, anthropology, palynology, botany. They had at their disposal the best science and technology available at that time.
The scientists, most of whom worked in the U.S.’ space and nuclear programs, were tasked with finding how the image got on the cloth. But, what in reality, can be said about the Shroud, based on the most recent scientific evidence? In 1978, a team of mainly American scientists known at the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) was given permission to perform multi-disciplinary, non-destructive testing on the Shroud (which precluded C-14 dating at the time) for five days and one-hundred-twenty hours. Proponents of the Shroud’s authenticity feel that all three of those points can be countered. 3) A C-14 test in 1988 putatively dated the cloth to AD 1260-1390, the period, which on the surface matches with the c. AD 1355, was a period rife with fake relics. 2) The period from which we do have an unbroken documentation, c. Many individuals or groups that upload Shroud videos attempting to debunk it seem to treat the subject as fluff and many believe they can make their cases in short videos, some being less than five minutes in length! There seems to be three main reasons why skeptics tend to feel the Shroud should be easy to debunk: 1) There is not a solid history for dating back to the 1st century, the time period of Jesus.
What forum did they use? – a YouTube video – on the Internet. I recently saw someone who didn’t believe the Shroud is authentic warn that one has to be careful about information about it put forth on the Internet. One can certainly find legitimate information on YouTube, but one also must be willing to separate the wheat from the chaff. It should be noted that YouTube videos should not be a researchers’ primary source of information, on the Shroud or any other topic for that matter. But one will also be supplied: *shroud of turin debunked. If one searches on YouTube for videos about the Shroud of Turin, the reputed burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth and just put in “shroud of turin” in the search box, YouTube will supply other search choices, such as: *shroud of turin Jesus *shroud of turin latest *shroud of turin documentary etc.
0 kommentar(er)
