Shroud of Turin believers want science to look until it comes to the conclusion they like

Debate over Shroud continues

Radiocarbon-dating tests in 1988 were supposed to settle debate about whether the Shroud of Turin was the burial cloth of Jesus.

Scientists determined the famous piece of linen was no older than the 13th or 14th century and, thus, did not date to the time of Christ.

But more than two decades after the testing, the shroud continues to be a source of intrigue worldwide, as well as in Western New York.

Russ Breault will add to the local discussion with a talk 7 p.m. Tuesday in Immanuel Lutheran Church in the City of Tonawanda.

“It remains one of the greatest unsolved mysteries in the world,” said Breault, who tours the country presenting the “Shroud Encounter,” a 90-minute presentation on the history of the shroud and various scientific examinations of it. “When you drill down into all that we know, it is truly a fascinating study. It is just like a CSI investigation.”

Tip: @Skeptinquiry on Twitter

Gee, this guy is missing the other half of the story.

“It’s the work of a confessed Medieval forger done in France in the middle of the 14th century using red ochre and vermilion tempre as part of a faith-healing scam,” said Joe Nickell, an investigative historian and Amherst resident who has written two books and several articles on the subject.

We have looked at at, not to prove it fake but to answer the question of where it came from. That’s been well established. But, here we find a clue to what is REALLY going on…

Local engineer Jeffrey Skurka, who recruited Breault to lecture last year on Palm Sunday in Springville, credits the shroud with helping rejuvenate his Catholic faith.

Skurka, who lives in Niagara Falls, doesn’t dispute the radiocarbon- dating results, but he ascribes the dating to a phenomenon known as “radiative capture,” which he believes was caused by radiation emitted during Christ’s resurrection.

“We need to take a harder look at this,” Skurka said.

So, we have faith based conclusion. He wants us to look harder until we find justification for the answer he likes. That’s sham inquiry and it’s worthless.

COMMENTING ON SOMEONE ELSE'S SITE IS NOT A RIGHT, IT'S A PRIVILEGE. READ AND UNDERSTAND THE COMMENT POLICY BEFORE SUBMITTING. NONSENSE IS NOT PERMITTED.

  6 comments for “Shroud of Turin believers want science to look until it comes to the conclusion they like

  1. Daran
    March 19, 2012 at 6:34 PM

    The tests I read about in the 80’s human blood was found to be the cause of the stains, not red ochre , disinformation seems to be the motive behind that book

    • daran
      March 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM

      What a horrible sterile and boring worldview the skeptics lead!
      Lies,disinformation and circular reasoning is their lot,any theory, no matter how ridiculous will do as long as it explains away creation.
      The big bang;first there was nothing, and then it exploded!
      Evidence for a world wide flood is everywhere but because the bible says God did it, they say it didn`t happen.
      Why do you need God for a world wide flood?
      Asteroids hitting the earth, breaking open the fountains of the deep and causing multi volcanic eruptions would easily account for it.
      I do believe God did it but if you don`t believe in him, come up with a theory of what caused it, don`t just say it didn`t happen when it is obvious it did!

      • March 19, 2012 at 6:59 PM

        What a sad life never to experience the beauty and wonder of nature for the glorious thing that it is. (Natural, not SUPERNATURAL.) And to solve mysteries and problems using our minds instead of just relying on “God did it”. How awful to just shut your mind off and not think about things but rely on one book. Why read any other?

        See how stupid that sounds to you? Don’t do it, cause your version sounds just as ridiculous to me.

        You want a discussion, engage in a discussion. If you are going to be condescending, go somewhere else and comment. Most of us have been to that side and discarded that view.

        Edit: although… looking back on your comments, they are baffling. I don’t understand at all what you are saying. Perhaps you can clarify what you even mean by “skeptic”? You need to express yourself more clearly.

  2. Daran
    March 19, 2012 at 7:56 PM

    I am sorry if I offended anyone, but that wasn’t my intention.
    Condescending I wasn’t trying to be.

    • March 19, 2012 at 8:40 PM

      OK. Sorry I overreacted then.

  3. March 21, 2012 at 7:22 PM

    Except that Joe Nickell’s work (which was really just that of Walter McCrone) has been thoroughly debunked (Walter’s papers were not peer-reviewed due to his poor methodology; he determined the ‘ochre’ by looking through a microscope instead of chemical testing. Gets worse since his specimen was skewed due to the mylar tape he was using.)

    Also, the peer-reviewed work of Raymond N. Rogers showed that the piece of the Shroud that was carbon-dated was a medieval re-weave. Ian Wilson’s research has established a pretty solid historical reconstruction, and all the data on the type of weave the Shroud is (three-to-one herringbone twill) as well as the specific 1st C. Judaic dirt found on it all are highly suggestive of an ancient Palestine origin.

Comments are closed.