The Shroud of Turin is real according to a JEW?!

[Marc1Mirza1]

Here's a very interesting radio interview about the Shroud of Turin, said to be Jesus. The guest (Barrie M. Schwortz) who is a JEW, believes that the image on the shroud really is Jesus! His team's analysis of it have been written about in peer reviewed scientific journals. The first link is the interview and the second one is his website.

1.http://avraudio.nwoinfo.com/marzulli-03-24-10.mp3

2. http://shroud.com/

Edit: If you haven't thoroughly looked at the information/evidence ^ presented, why would you bother to make blind arguments thinking you already know how to rebut that which you haven't researched? Why should I counter trying to refute your ignorant assumptions?

Link to some of the peer reviewed information.
http://shroud.com/papers.htm

***FINAL EDIT ON POST NUMBER 1***

Here are some "cliff notes" for those who have asked. Originally, I was hoping that people would listen to at least the radio interview and glean the -what I found interesting- information from it, but for whatever reason, people won't. I purposely left the original post short since through experience I have seen people disregard long posts. Perhaps information overload. And to put up small snippets without detailed surrounding information, it does not do the data justice. It can also cause more confusion if the full scope of the details are not there. I'll try to be short with these notes, but since I'm a detailed guy and a writer anyways (I have multiple blogs, writing a book etc) if it goes too long for your liking, blame those that asked for these notes hehe.

I've learned here, that my fatal "error" is where I mentioned Schwortz and his team's research being in peer reviewed scientific journals ("journals" is the key word). He mentions it in the radio interview that there have been 24 write ups in such journals since 1981. Some of these are on his website (that I posted) but honestly, I'm not sure where all they are on there, as there is a lot of information (I have no reason to assume that he's lying about this) to read. However, Alan Aragon was successful in finding such information on his website from his associates. Whether they were all on his team or not, I'm not sure, but their info nevertheless verifies what he and his team have said.

Now, though I did say "journals" (I will hold to that and post "journals" below for you folks), I think some people don't understand the peer review process. A peer review does not rely on the fact (i.e. is not validated/invalidated) if it goes into a journal (or any writing at all) or not. It's my suspicion that folks in general believe peer review equals written down somewhere. But, this is not always the case. My brother who is an architect informed me that he had to have multiple peer reviews -from his professors, and yes, peers- to get his degree. Some of which were not written down, (model presentations, image rendering etc). My grandpa -who is an astrophyscist for JPL/NASA, he has worked with Carl Sagan; on Mariner 9 probe mission etc, is also an expert in the field of gravity (no pun intended)- will affirm what my brother has said. I have other scientists in my family also but if I mention them and their field of expertise, I might be accused of "appealing to authority". I only brought up gramps (and my brother) as a relevant point to show that I am indeed informed on how this peer review thing works. Nothing less, nothing more. Onto the information.

Some of the points/data (and rebuttals of old research that is now debunked) I found interesting -on the shroud being real and not being a forgery, and these points as a collective are to me, convincing- are primarily from Schwortz's radio interview. However, there are some additional points that he (and his team, John Jackson was actually the lead) had on a documentary that was on the History Channel. The documentary can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47Vz7...eature=related


1.The Shroud of Turin is first century linen manufactured in the ancient method, not woven in the medieval or modern method.

2.It bears the image of a man front and back that was scourged. It has about 120 blood stained markings, wounds that are dumbbell shaped which are consistent with the flagrum of a Roman whip with 3 throngs and dumbbell shape weights at the end of it.

3.The individual had been speared in the side. With ultra violet florescent photography it can be seen that there's a large serum stain surrounding the blood which is invisible to the naked eye (this can't be faked with medieval technology).

4.The man was clearly crucified, the exit wound (from the nail) was at the palm, and at an angle, which happens to be forensically (as attested by 3 forensics experts, how long have forensics existed?) accurate to that of a crucified victim.

5.There are blood stains on the head, front and back, consistent from a crown of thorns. There's only one place in recorded history where Romans placed a crown of thorns on a crucified victim, and that was the account of Jesus.

6.The image on the shroud contains encoded spacial (3D) depth information, in which, paintings never contain such information. Only a computer can render this (this can't be faked with medieval technology).

7.The image on the shroud is a positive with lights and darks reversed, like a photographic negative does (this can't be faked with medieval technology). Schwortz said that you can't make a photographic image without silver -in a certain form- but when the shroud was fully examined and tested, no trace of silver was found.

8.Schwortz explained how the Luigi Garlaschelli made shroud (which was said to "debunk" the shroud of Turin) is not even a close replica. "LG" claims that the image was made by red iron oxide pigment, but it was found in minute insignificant quantities on the various parts on the clothe (on the image, and other areas). The scientific tests (via Pyrolysis Mass Spectrometry) concluded that there was no manganese, cobalt properties and other data to confirm LG's claim. No image to date, has close to having the same physical and chemical properties as the shroud, no one has came even close. Note: Here's the peer reviewed paper on the study (special thanks to Alan for finding it). http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proce...mburgerWeb.pdf

9.Schwortz mentioned a face cloth (The Sudarium of Oviedo Spain) -which dates back to the 6th century without a break in its historical record- and it has blood stains that are congruent (matching up exactly) to the head of the shroud. This is the matching burial face cloth to the shroud. This can be witnessed on the History Channel Documentary I cited earlier.

10.He brought up the old Hungarian manuscript called the "Hungarian Pray Codex" that depicts the picture of the shroud including the "L shape" burn marks on it, herring bone weave of the cloth, and certain blood stains that parallel those on the shroud. The date of this codex is from 1191, when the carbon date test (more on this later) said that it can't be from any earlier than 1260-1390.

11.In the year 2000, some researchers brought some information to the table, questioning where the sample was taken from on the shroud; the sample that was used for the carbon dating test. It was found that that area of the cloth was chemically different, it had been repaired, cotton was rewoven into it, and dye was added to the surface after it was rewoven to match the rest of the color of the cloth. This information was published in 2005 in a peer reviewed scientific journal called the Thermochimica Acta Volume 425, Issues 1-2, Pages 189-194., by the man (and corroborated by associate Raymond N. Rogers) who was the head chemist (of Schwortz's team, Robert Villarreal of Los Alamos National Laboratory) showing that the sample dated, was not an original piece.

The paper concludes:
"Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometryresults from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud."
http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF
There have been multiple peer reviewed papers since this one, that have confirmed this analysis.

12. Another reason why the carbon test wouldn't likely work anyways, is because the accuracy is compromised by 100's of years of people handling the shroud (leaving their DNA), the fires it went through (adding carbon) etc. In effect, it's "tainted".

13. Schwortz explained that through analysis, the blood stains were already on the shroud BEFORE the image was formed. That would mean that the "forger" would have to put the blood stains on forensically correct BEFORE he/she put the image on the cloth. We still couldn't do that today.

14. Schwortz explained that when putting the shroud under 10x magnification it was shown that there were no brush strokes, particulates, no paint, no medium etc. Another proof showing the image was not made by ink.

15. From the 3D rendered holographic of the shroud image, it was shown that the individual was in rigamortis. This was confirmed by forensic experts as well.

[SoggyDoughnut]

peer reviewed scientific journal on jesus, i've seen it all now

[Marc1Mirza1]

peer reviewed scientific journal on jesus, i've seen it all now

Peer review results/research on the Turin, genius. Since you posted so quick, I know:

1. You didn't check out this info.

2. You're not looking for a real discussion as your mind is made up before researching what's been presented.

[hittman]

why did you highlight the fact he is a jew?

what does this have to do with it?

[Marc1Mirza1]

why did you highlight the fact he is a jew?

what does this have to do with it?

It's interesting to show that he even though he is not a Christian, he still affirms the Shroud as being real. If it were a Christian "proving" a Christian issue, that would be expected and more of an anecdotal evidence scenario. But, a nonbeliever to affirm something that is against their very faith, I find that odd. It shows me that his research is above his dogma, which is rare.

[mistaballoonhan]

Aware me on the shroud of Turin

[Uncle-Phil]

The shroud of torin has been debunked already.
Being a Jew doesn't qualify anything.

[Marc1Mirza1]

The shroud of torin has been debunked already.
Being a Jew doesn't qualify anything.

The Shroud has not been debunked, you're mistaken. And yes, him being a Jew doesn't qualify anything other than he's willing to put research over religion.

[Uncle-Phil]

The Shroud has not been debunked, you're mistaken. And yes, him being a Jew doesn't qualify anything other than he's willing to put research over religion.

Yes it has. I wouldn't claim it has been debunked if it hasn't. I'll post the info tomorrow when I get a chance.

[Marc1Mirza1]

Yes it has. I wouldn't claim it has been debunked if it hasn't. I'll post the info tomorrow when I get a chance.

I'll bet -I hope I'm wrong- that your main info will be of the carbon dating test "showing" it to be from the middle ages. Later it was found that the piece tested, was a woven in piece (added later after a fire), with the material weave not matching the rest of the clothe. The other "debeunkers" have mentioned that the dye that "made" the image is from the middle ages as well. However, the image is made by LIGHT -with 3D imagining only a computer can render out; more than just a film negative as previously thought- (not ink) which cannot be reduplicated by our own technology. I await to see what you have. Here's a common site that I've seen which "debunks" the Shroud, but it's old outdated research but curiously the site has not been updated as is the case with other "debunker sites" that I have viewed.

http://skepdic.com/shroud.html

[Marc1Mirza1]

Tell me your thoughts (objections etc) on the radio interview as well as the website I listed. I will be happy to review any info you have. Take care!

[TheAdlerian]

Here's a very interesting radio interview about the Shroud of Turin, said to be Jesus. The guest (Barrie M. Schwortz) who is a JEW, believes that the image on the shroud really is Jesus! His team's analysis of it have been written about in peer reviewed scientific journals. The first link is the interview and the second one is his website.

1.http://avraudio.nwoinfo.com/marzulli-03-24-10.mp3

2. http://shroud.com/

Jews benefit heavily from people believing in religion.

If christianity is debunked and few people believe then the next to go are jews. So, it benefits jews to keep non-jews religious. That keeps the money and power flowing for them.

[riptor]

Sorry, the Shroud is of medieval origin. I checked out the OP's sources and the very first peer reviewed article it mentioned, under "Late Breaking Website News", is a study that confirms the 1988 radiocarbon dating that found the Shroud dates to the 13th - 14th centuries. They have a rebuttal PDF article, and I didn't even read the entire thing because it starts with the assumption that the Shroud is real. The PDF article makes three statements:

Evidence is not proof and the radiocarbon tests prove nothing. To
definitely prove that the Shroud is of mediaeval origin would require the following:

Undisputed rebuttal of all the evidence showing it to be older than mediaeval.

A scientifically valid and rigorously tested explanation of how the Shroud was produced in the middle ages.

Replication of the Shroud, using materials available in the middle ages, to a standard where the replicated image exactly matches the image on the Shroud in every physical and chemical detail.

None of this has been done.

http://shroud.com/pdfs/oxley.pdf

The last statement is utterly false. Joe Nickell in his books "The Mystery Chronicles" and "Relics of the Christ" gives convincing evidence that the Shroud is a Medieval forgery. First of all, the only evidence of the Shroud existing prior to the 14th century are anecdotal stories with no hard evidence to back them up. Even the 14th century bishop sent to investigate the Shroud determined it to be a fake.

Nickell was also able to replicate the Shroud. He took a bas relief of Jesus' face, coated it with materials that would have been available to medieval artists, draped a damp cloth over it, and baked it in an oven. What he got was an image that looks extremely similar to the one on the Shroud, and it even exhibited the same effects as the Shroud when it was photographed.

[Marc1Mirza1]

Sorry, the Shroud is of medieval origin. I checked out the OP's sources and the very first peer reviewed article it mentioned, under "Late Breaking Website News", is a study that confirms the 1988 radiocarbon dating that found the Shroud dates to the 13th - 14th centuries. They have a rebuttal PDF article, and I didn't even read the entire thing because it starts with the assumption that the Shroud is real. The PDF article makes three statements:


http://shroud.com/pdfs/oxley.pdf

The last statement is utterly false. Joe Nickell in his books "The Mystery Chronicles" and "Relics of the Christ" gives convincing evidence that the Shroud is a Medieval forgery. First of all, the only evidence of the Shroud existing prior to the 14th century are anecdotal stories with no hard evidence to back them up. Even the 14th century bishop sent to investigate the Shroud determined it to be a fake.

Nickell was also able to replicate the Shroud. He took a bas relief of Jesus' face, coated it with materials that would have been available to medieval artists, draped a damp cloth over it, and baked it in an oven. What he got was an image that looks extremely similar to the one on the Shroud, and it even exhibited the same effects as the Shroud when it was photographed.

I already addressed those outdated rebuttals. Please read above what I wrote.

[Marc1Mirza1]

Jews benefit heavily from people believing in religion.

If christianity is debunked and few people believe then the next to go are jews. So, it benefits jews to keep non-jews religious. That keeps the money and power flowing for them.

Your thoughts on the interview?

[riptor]

I already addressed those outdated rebuttals. Please read above what I wrote.

You didn't address anything. You mentioned the claim that the part of the Shroud that was radiocarbon dated was from a rewoven area, but his is just an ad hoc explanation invented by Shroud apologists. As Nickell states:

In fact, the radiocarbon sample (a small piece cut from the "main body of the shroud" [Damon 1988, 612]) was destroyed by the testing. Rogers (2005) relied on two little threads allegedly left over from the sampling,1 together with segments taken from an adjacent area in 1973. He cites pro-authenticity researchers who guessed that the carbon-14 sample came from a "rewoven area" of repair—"As unlikely as it seems," Rogers admitted to one news source (Lorenzi 2005). Indeed, textile experts specifically made efforts to select a site for taking the radiocarbon sample that was away from patches and seams (Damon et al. 1989, 611—612).

Rogers compared the threads with some small samples from elsewhere on the Shroud, claiming to find differences between the two sets of threads that "prove" the radiocarbon sample "was not part of the original cloth" of the Turin shroud (as stated in his abstract [Rogers 2005, 189]).

The reported differences include the presence—allegedly only on the "radiocarbon sample"—of cotton fibers and a coating of madder root dye in a binding medium that his tests "suggest" is gum Arabic. He insists the sampled area was that of an interwoven medieval repair that was intentionally colored to match the "older, sepia-colored cloth" (Rogers 2005, 192, 193).

However, Rogers' assertions to the contrary, both the cotton and the madder have been found elsewhere on the shroud. Both were specifically reported by famed microanalyst Walter McCrone (1996, 85) who was commissioned to examine samples taken by the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP). After McCrone discovered the image was rendered in tempera paint, STURP held him to a secrecy agreement, while statements were made to the press that no evidence of artistry was found. McCrone was then, he says, "drummed out" of the organization [Nickell 1998, 124—125; 2004, 193—194]. As evidence of its pro-authenticity bias, STURP’s leaders served on the executive committee of the Holy Shroud Guild.

Not only did McCrone find "occasional" cotton fibers on the Shroud, but the source of Rogers' sample, Gilbert Raes, has since been challenged as to his claim, cited by Rogers (2005, 189), that "the cotton was an ancient Near Eastern variety." In fact, others—including French textile expert Gabriel Vial and major pro-shroud author Ian Wilson (1998, 71, 97)—believe the cotton may be entirely incidental. They point out it could have come from the cotton gloves or clothing of the Turin’s cloth’s handlers or a similarly mundane source.

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticle...m_whole_cloth/

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../337611a0.html

So basically there is no evidence that the dated section is newer in any way.

[Irezumi]

The Shroud has not been debunked, you're mistaken. And yes, him being a Jew doesn't qualify anything other than he's willing to put research over religion.

I believe it has...I think it was carbon dated and the dates weren't even close.

[Beeewbs]

Here's a very interesting radio interview about the Shroud of Turin, said to be Jesus. The guest (Barrie M. Schwortz) who is a JEW, believes that the image on the shroud really is Jesus! His team's analysis of it have been written about in peer reviewed scientific journals. The first link is the interview and the second one is his website.

1.http://avraudio.nwoinfo.com/marzulli-03-24-10.mp3

2. http://shroud.com/

Appeal to authority/Jew. Show us the science journals that this appeared in.

[Marc1Mirza1]

Appeal to authority/Jew. Show us the science journals that this appeared in.

Ahh misapplication of the fallacy. I'm not saying that because he is Jew, he is right (it's odd that you would you think that someone would deem a certain race as automatically an authority over their credentials?), I just find it interesting that he would affirm something that refutes his religion. That's all. What's your thoughts on the interview and his website?

[StylesOfBeyond]

What significance a cloth with a man's face on it could have is beyond me.

Furthermore, on the wiki page for the Shroud, it bears a very Northern European look. So it sure as sh!t ain't a man from the Middle East who slammed their face in a cloth, I'm pretty sure of that.

[Marc1Mirza1]

You didn't address anything. You mentioned the claim that the part of the Shroud that was radiocarbon dated was from a rewoven area, but his is just an ad hoc explanation invented by Shroud apologists. As Nickell states:



http://www.csicop.org/specialarticle...m_whole_cloth/

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../337611a0.html

So basically there is no evidence that the dated section is newer in any way.

What's your thoughts on the radio interview and his team's research?

[Marc1Mirza1]

What significance a cloth with a man's face on it could have is beyond me.

Furthermore, on the wiki page for the Shroud, it bears a very Northern European look. So it sure as sh!t ain't a man from the Middle East who slammed their face in a cloth, I'm pretty sure of that.

What's your thoughts on the radio interview and his team's research?

[StylesOfBeyond]

What's your thoughts on the radio interview and his team's research?

I opened it up, but it's obviously a very long interview, because I got to about 11 minutes and it wasn't even a quarter of the way along a bar, so I can't say.

EDIT: didn't make it clear; it's not that I'm still listening, it's just that, to be honest, I really don't care enough to listen to the whole thing.

[TheAdlerian]

Your thoughts on the interview?

Jewish guy selling crap via website at the expense of the infidel faith.

That's perfectly in line with jewish rules on how to exploit the infidel and they're under no obligation to do anything differently, in fact they supposed to be doing that.

Why doesn't he sell some pictures of David or something? Probably because his fellow jews wouldn't find it as amusing.

[Marc1Mirza1]

I opened it up, but it's obviously a very long interview, because I got to about 11 minutes and it wasn't even a quarter of the way along a bar, so I can't say.

EDIT: didn't make it clear; it's not that I'm still listening, it's just that, to be honest, I really don't care enough to listen to the whole thing.

Thank you for your honesty.

[Marc1Mirza1]

Jewish guy selling crap via website at the expense of the infidel faith.

That's perfectly in line with jewish rules on how to exploit the infidel and they're under no obligation to do anything differently, in fact they supposed to be doing that.

Why doesn't he sell some pictures of David or something? Probably because his fellow jews wouldn't find it as amusing.

Your thoughts on the interview/research?

[StylesOfBeyond]

Thank you for your honesty.

Could you 'cliff' the significance of it? Like I said, I'm very, very sceptical of it just based on the fact the image resembles a 'European' face, and the shroud seems to have made its major 'debut' in France. The two suggest that it's....well, suspect, to say the least.

[Beeewbs]

Ahh misapplication of the fallacy. I'm not saying that because he is Jew, he is right (it's odd that you would you think that someone would deem a certain race as automatically an authority over their credentials?), I just find it interesting that he would affirm something that refutes his religion.

I was halfway kidding, but it does seem like Christians love to brag about Jews or Muslims embracing their ideas, as if it gives them some sort of extra credibility.

That's all. What's your thoughts on the interview and his website?

Don't care. I want to see the articles as they appear in these supposed science journals. What he has to say on his website or interviews doesn't mean anything to me. I want to see evidence that this stuff actually got into legitimate scientific journals.

[TheAdlerian]

Your thoughts on the interview/research?

I don't believe the shroud is real, due to the testing, the fact that artistic technique has been discussed, and for reasons of religious logic.

Catholics have a history of producing relics. There's the joke that so many bits of the cross have been sold that the cross of have to have been a hundrend feet tall. They have collections of saint bones, and all of these primitive magic items, beads, all of which are meaningless fetishes. There's a history of lying saying that people had visions, have stigmata, and so on. The shroud is another fake in line with a culture that produces fake stuff.

This stuff has nothing to do with Jesus. He said what you need to do and that's it. All of the drama is some kind of Latin/Italian nonsense, because that's what those people need, a show, because they really aren't religious.

[Marc1Mirza1]

I don't believe the shroud is real, due to the testing, the fact that artistic technique has been discussed, and for reasons of religious logic.

Catholics have a history of producing relics. There's the joke that so many bits of the cross have been sold that the cross of have to have been a hundrend feet tall. They have collections of saint bones, and all of these primitive magic items, beads, all of which are meaningless fetishes. There's a history of lying saying that people had visions, have stigmata, and so on. The shroud is another fake in line with a culture that produces fake stuff.

This stuff has nothing to do with Jesus. He said what you need to do and that's it. All of the drama is some kind of Latin/Italian nonsense, because that's what those people need, a show, because they really aren't religious.

Your thoughts on the interview/research?