Which Is The Fraud?

[CatherineM]

I had the unfortunate experience of having something pierce my left palm. Even the surgeon had trouble removing it, so I think the tendons, ligaments, and muscles there are stronger than we realize. It also made me a firm believer that Padre Pio could not have self inflicted his stigmata. It hurt, and made my left hand unusable for awhile. I can't imagine him being able to do that repeatedly, and still being able to feed himself.

[JustJ]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1598407' date='Jul 12 2008, 01:24 AM'][size=3]The Shroud of Turin[/size]
[img]http://z.about.com/d/paranormal/1/7/M/V/1/shroud-of-turin.jpg[/img]

[size=3]The Stigmata[/size]
[img]http://s3.amazonaws.com/bloghoax/PadrePio.jpg[/img]

One Shows the wonds of Christ on the hands, the other on the wrists.
Seems odd
[/quote]
The shroud has been disproved many times over.

As for the hands thing, that wouldn't have held a body on the cross. I guess one might argue that it's symbolic more than literal, though, so I've got no argument against this case of Stigmata right now.

[lilac_angel]

No, it hasn't been "disproven" many times over. It's still being debated to this day. People have attempted to disprove it, sometimes using parts of the cloth that were later repaired, for example, which made it seem that it was made much later than it was, but if it were already disproven, then I think that would be more apparent by now.

[JustJ]

[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1599280' date='Jul 13 2008, 04:43 PM']No, it hasn't been "disproven" many times over. It's still being debated to this day. People have attempted to disprove it, sometimes using parts of the cloth that were later repaired, for example, which made it seem that it was made much later than it was, but if it were already disproven, then I think that would be more apparent by now.[/quote]
Minor nitpick: It's "disproved" (ending in a d).

But if you want to prove it is true, why not allow a portion of the cloth that bears the image itself to be tested? Surely, that is the part that would give the most accurate results.

Based on your claim, then, it is inconclusive. However, the evidence is, so far, stacked against it. (The only swatch authorized to be tested did not show any evidence of it being even remotely near the correct time period. All you would have to do to turn this around and show that it is true, if it is, in fact, true, is allow some portion from the original to be tested. I somehow do not think you could even possibly say that the part bearing the image of the man is anything but the original, unless you would concede that the image itself is not entirely genuine.)

Unfortunately, you are all quite convinced it is true before you even know it to be true, and you do not allow testing of any other parts, and the parts you did allow testing in, which contradicts your claims, is thrown out.

I really wish I could make up a story like that and believe it, but I don't see how that would make me anything but crazy.

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://www.innoval.com/C14/"]Radiocarbon Dating Red Flags[/url]

There were other clues, as well. All of them were warning signs that something might be wrong with the carbon 14 samples:

[indent]* Giovanni Riggi, the person who actually cut the carbon 14 sample from the Shroud stated, "I was authorized to cut approximately 8 square centimetres of cloth from the Shroud…This was then reduced to about 7 cm because fibres of other origins had become mixed up with the original fabric …" (emphasis mine)

* Giorgio Tessiore, who documented the sampling, wrote: “…1 cm of the new sample had to be discarded because of the presence of different color threads.” (emphasis mine)

* Edward (Teddy) Hall, head of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory, had noticed fibers that looked out of place. A laboratory in Derbyshire concluded that the rogue fibers were cotton of “a fine, dark yellow strand.” Derbyshire's Peter South wrote: “It may have been used for repairs at some time in the past…”

* Gilbert Raes, when later he examined some of the carbon 14 samples, noticed that cotton fibers were contained inside the threads, which could help to explain differences in fiber diameter. This may also explain why the carbon 14 samples apparently weighed much more than was as expected.

* Alan Adler at Western Connecticut State University found large amounts of aluminum in yarn segments from the radiocarbon sample, up to 2%, by energy-dispersive x-ray analysis. Why aluminum? That was an important question because it is not found elsewhere on the Shroud.

* The radiocarbon lab at the University of Arizona conducted eight tests. But there was a wide variance in the computed dates and so the team in Arizona combined results to produce four results thus eliminating the more outlying dates (reportedly they did so at the request of the British Museum, which was overseeing the tests). Even then, according to Remi Van Haelst, a retired industrial chemist in Belgium, the results failed to meet minimum statistical standards (chi-squared tests). Why the wide variance in the dates? Was it because of testing errors? Or was it because the sample was not sufficiently homogeneous? The latter seems very likely now, and the statistical anomaly indicates something very suspicious about the samples.

* Bryan Walsh, a statistician, examined Van Haelst’s analysis and further studied the measurements. He concluded that the divided samples used in multiple tests contained different levels of the C14 isotope. The overall cut sample was non-homogeneous and thus of questionable validity. Walsh found a significant relationship between the measured age of various sub-samples and their distance from the edge of the cloth. Though Walsh did not suggest invisible reweaving, it is consistent with his findings.[/indent]

[JustJ]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1599335' date='Jul 13 2008, 05:39 PM'][url="http://www.innoval.com/C14/"]Radiocarbon Dating Red Flags[/url]

There were other clues, as well. All of them were warning signs that something might be wrong with the carbon 14 samples:

[indent]* Giovanni Riggi, the person who actually cut the carbon 14 sample from the Shroud stated, "I was authorized to cut approximately 8 square centimetres of cloth from the Shroud…This was then reduced to about 7 cm because fibres of other origins had become mixed up with the original fabric …" (emphasis mine)

* Giorgio Tessiore, who documented the sampling, wrote: “…1 cm of the new sample had to be discarded because of the presence of different color threads.” (emphasis mine)

* Edward (Teddy) Hall, head of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory, had noticed fibers that looked out of place. A laboratory in Derbyshire concluded that the rogue fibers were cotton of “a fine, dark yellow strand.” Derbyshire's Peter South wrote: “It may have been used for repairs at some time in the past…”

* Gilbert Raes, when later he examined some of the carbon 14 samples, noticed that cotton fibers were contained inside the threads, which could help to explain differences in fiber diameter. This may also explain why the carbon 14 samples apparently weighed much more than was as expected.

* Alan Adler at Western Connecticut State University found large amounts of aluminum in yarn segments from the radiocarbon sample, up to 2%, by energy-dispersive x-ray analysis. Why aluminum? That was an important question because it is not found elsewhere on the Shroud.

* The radiocarbon lab at the University of Arizona conducted eight tests. But there was a wide variance in the computed dates and so the team in Arizona combined results to produce four results thus eliminating the more outlying dates (reportedly they did so at the request of the British Museum, which was overseeing the tests). Even then, according to Remi Van Haelst, a retired industrial chemist in Belgium, the results failed to meet minimum statistical standards (chi-squared tests). Why the wide variance in the dates? Was it because of testing errors? Or was it because the sample was not sufficiently homogeneous? The latter seems very likely now, and the statistical anomaly indicates something very suspicious about the samples.

* Bryan Walsh, a statistician, examined Van Haelst’s analysis and further studied the measurements. He concluded that the divided samples used in multiple tests contained different levels of the C14 isotope. The overall cut sample was non-homogeneous and thus of questionable validity. Walsh found a significant relationship between the measured age of various sub-samples and their distance from the edge of the cloth. Though Walsh did not suggest invisible reweaving, it is consistent with his findings.[/indent][/quote]
That would render those samples rather unreliable.

Why not allow samples that, instead, come from the part no one disputes to be the original, which is any section bearing the marks?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1599339' date='Jul 13 2008, 04:41 PM']That would render those samples rather unreliable.

Why not allow samples that, instead, come from the part no one disputes to be the original, which is any section bearing the marks?[/quote]

The question would be is there such a part? Over the ages the Shroud has been repaired many times, but it has also been cut here and there, and all over. Which brings up another reason why such a step will not be made so quickly. There is at least a possibility, however small or large that the shroud is real, which would make it the burial cloth of God. With that understanding, I could understand why the Holy See isn't to quick to go cutting it up some more. The Holy See will probably again allow some part to be cut off, but it most likely will not be soon, as nothing from the Holy See is done quickly.

[fides quarens intellectum]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1599275' date='Jul 13 2008, 03:36 PM']The shroud has been disproved many times over.[/quote]

no, it has not.

[quote name='JustJ' post='1599290' date='Jul 13 2008, 03:49 PM']But if you want to prove it is true, why not allow a portion of the cloth that bears the image itself to be tested? Surely, that is the part that would give the most accurate results.[/quote]

They have - they carefully pulled fibrils (i don't remember how many, and haven't teh time to find it) and performed a battery of tests on them (see below).

[quote name='JustJ' post='1599290' date='Jul 13 2008, 03:49 PM']However, the evidence is, so far, stacked against it. (The only swatch authorized to be tested did not show any evidence of it being even remotely near the correct time period. All you would have to do to turn this around and show that it is true, if it is, in fact, true, is allow some portion from the original to be tested. I somehow do not think you could even possibly say that the part bearing the image of the man is anything but the original, unless you would concede that the image itself is not entirely genuine.)[/quote]

i wouldn't say the evidence is stacked against it. Again, i suggest Mark Antonacci's [u]The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical and Archeological Evidence[/u], which talks about tests performed, such as accelerator mass spectrometry, applied spectral imaging, biuret-lowry, chemical, cyanmethemoglobin, fluorescence, FTIR, hemochromagen, microspectrophtotometric transmission, protease, proteolytic enzyme, reflection spectra, SEM, ultraviolet flourscence and imaging, and Xray. Plus, the dubious 1988 radiocarbon, which other people have already discussed the problems of.


[quote name='JustJ' post='1599290' date='Jul 13 2008, 03:49 PM']Unfortunately, you are all quite convinced it is true before you even know it to be true, and you do not allow testing of any other parts, and the parts you did allow testing in, which contradicts your claims, is thrown out.

I really wish I could make up a story like that and believe it, but I don't see how that would make me anything but crazy.[/quote]

No, i really am a bit of a skeptic (predominantly Baptist and atheist in background), so i was not at all leaning towards its veractiy until doing a small bit of research. For me, i don't see any rational explanation for it not to be the shroud Jesus was buried in - too much evidence supports it being so (especially considering most of the evidence on the shroud could not be understood/appreciated until science and technology caught up, 1900+ years after the Resurrection event). However, this is not something that we have to believe in, one way or the other, as Catholics. For me, it certainly adds to the faith, but i don't recall the Church ever saying we must to believe this is the burial cloth of Jesus. i think of it as like a cool bonus for being Catholic.

[Madame Vengier]

There's nothing odd about it.

Both are correct.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1599275' date='Jul 13 2008, 03:36 PM']The shroud has been disproved many times over.[/quote]

Wrong.

Anyway....

[pan!c139]

Hmmm......I dunno.....

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='salterrae' post='1599204' date='Jul 13 2008, 01:41 PM']JM + JT

Looks more like the carpals to me.

But that wouldn't be right since, as the Lamb, his bones were supposed to remain unbroken, correct?[/quote]


The Lord was nailed through both his hand and his wrist. And there were no broken bones. You are correct.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1599275' date='Jul 13 2008, 05:36 PM']The shroud has been disproved many times over.

As for the hands thing, that wouldn't have held a body on the cross. I guess one might argue that it's symbolic more than literal, though, so I've got no argument against this case of Stigmata right now.[/quote]
Wrong. THe shoud has never been disproven. It contains the pollen of flowers from Jerusalem on 1st century cloth only woven by jews of a certain area. It corresponds to the Sudarium found in another church.

[Autumn Dusk]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1601138' date='Jul 16 2008, 02:26 PM']The Lord was nailed through both his hand and his wrist. And there were no broken bones. You are correct.[/quote]


Errr...I thought we don't know the exact spot that Jesus was nailed to the cross. And unless you were there (which I doubt) I wouldn't hold your word as the final say.

How Jesus was actually hung, in referance to the stigmata is kinda like saying that everyone has the exact same "pit of the stomach" feeling when they get bad news.

A saint, a dr of the church, I forget who now, once questioned another saint's stigmata marks saying that she truly had the stigmata and the priest must be pretending. Later on Jesus appeared to her and said that stigmata was a gift through devotion to him, not an outward statement of the crucifixion, becuase his passion goes beyond the physical scars he bore to the inward weight of all the sins he carried.

Of course, that was a private revelation. So you're not required to believe it anyway.

Jesus was a physical man who had a height and weight just like everyone else. How would you even start to measure the diameters for stigmata transfer if it was an exact science...ratio? porportion? distance? Would the nailholes be two inches big on a saint who had dainty little hands and only a four inch palm? What about on an seven inch palm? Is it always an inch from the thumb? and so on, you get the point. Stigmata is not about the physical, but rather the devotion.

[add]

[url="http://www.latimes.com/features/religion/la-na-turinside17-2008aug17,0,2258243.story"]findings[/url]

[font="Garamond"][size=4]The shroud is kept in the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin, Italy.[/size][/font]

[font="Garamond"][size=4] John and Rebecca Jackson, a physicist who teaches at the University of Colorado, hypothesizes that contamination of the cloth by elevated levels of carbon monoxide skewed the 1988 carbon-14 dating by 1,300 years.[/size][/font]

[font="Garamond"][size=4]Oxford has agreed to help them reexamine the findings (if permitted by the Vatican).[/size][/font]

[font="Garamond"][size=4]"There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow, and so further research is certainly needed," says a statement on his website.[/size][/font]

[mortify]

Heh...

[MakeYouThink]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1598407' date='Jul 12 2008, 12:24 AM'][size=3]The Shroud of Turin[/size]
[img]http://z.about.com/d/paranormal/1/7/M/V/1/shroud-of-turin.jpg[/img]

[size=3]The Stigmata[/size]
[img]http://s3.amazonaws.com/bloghoax/PadrePio.jpg[/img]

One Shows the wonds of Christ on the hands, the other on the wrists.


Seems odd
[/quote]

Easy, which one if the fraud. The wounds in the hand.

If to took someone, Put a nail through his palm, and held him 15-20 feet in the air, which was customary back then, the hand would be torn apart and half his hand would be gone on both hand, and would probably have the hands removed from the nail.

However, if you put a nail through someone's wrist, there is bones to the top and bottom. And it is much more torturous, to have you arms get tired while gravity pulls at them, move them, only for a nail agrivating the bones in your arms, because the bones keep you in place!

[lilac_angel]

[quote name='MakeYouThink' post='1630324' date='Aug 18 2008, 12:29 AM']Easy, which one if the fraud. The wounds in the hand.

If to took someone, Put a nail through his palm, and held him 15-20 feet in the air, which was customary back then, the hand would be torn apart and half his hand would be gone on both hand, and would probably have the hands removed from the nail.[/quote]

What if their wrists/forearms are firmly tied to the Cross? The two thieves were customarily shown to be tied to the cross. And they stayed up there securely.

Edited August 18, 2008 by lilac_angel

[MakeYouThink]

[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1630331' date='Aug 18 2008, 12:46 AM']What if their wrists/forearms are firmly tied to the Cross? The two thieves were customarily shown to be tied to the cross. And they stayed up there securely.[/quote]

You're not really understanding what I am saying. Yes, they could have been tied up.

But which would be more totureous?

The Romans were experts at this, and they wanted their victims to be tortured good on that Cross. Historically, the Romans wanted to make sure nobody would dissent from their rule. To demoralize people, they would put people on the cross. Now imagine, you have nails through your wrists, and every time you moved your arms because of exhaustion, or to straighten yourself, jolts of pain cascaded through your body. The screams of pain would make all those who listened obedient because they don't want the same. It is that imagine, that makes me feel more unworthy of Christ's love, because I am not worth that. He shouldn't have done that for me, because he didn't deserve that, and I am just a sinner. I don't deserve any kind of grace or love!

It makes his death even more dear to me, because of what he had to go through on the cross, the jolts of pain cascading through his body, as he straightened up to take a breath.

Edited August 18, 2008 by MakeYouThink

[lilac_angel]

[quote name='MakeYouThink' post='1630334' date='Aug 18 2008, 01:56 AM']You're not really understanding what I am saying. Yes, they could have been tied up.

But which would be more totureous?

The Romans were experts at this, and they wanted their victims to be tortured good on that Cross. Historically, I would definitely go with through the wrists, because the Romans wanted to make sure people obeyed them. Hearing those crucified writhing in pain, every time they tried to move their arms, as they were trying to straighten to take a breath, that's cruel, and completely how I see how my lord had to die for me, and at the same time, would discourage dissidents![/quote]

No, I didn't misunderstand; I was just making sure you thought of that possibility. I don't necessarily embrace the rope view myself for Christ. But it doesn't necessarily make the saints' stigmatas frauds... people have experienced miraculous cures from Padre Pio, and he had the stigmata and all kinds of other gifts. People mentioned above that both can be legit and gave reasons why this is true.

Edited August 18, 2008 by lilac_angel