|
Post by scaramouche on Jul 31, 2016 18:06:18 GMT
In 1988, the Carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin identified the most famous relic in Christendom as a fake. But since then, despite many attempts, no one has been able to determine who the forger was or how it might have been done. In this outstanding BBC documentary, Rageh Omaar sets out to find out exactly what it is about the image that has defied imitation and explores new evidence that challenges the verdict on the Shroud. With unique access to the Shroud itself and those closest to it, Rageh goes on his own journey of discovery. He also visits the leader of the 1978 US investigation that was given access to the cloth for a week, Dr John Jackson, who reveals the results from the data collected and a lifetime of research. Two other Shrouds of Christ have existed at different times down the centuries. One is the Shroud of Constantinople, described as having an image of Christ and stolen by the Crusaders in 1204. The Turin Shroud appeared 150 years later in the family of one of those Crusaders. The other is the Shroud of Jerusalem that wrapped Jesus' body. With the help of a team of international scholars Rageh explores new evidence that links the Turin Shroud to both locations and times. Could they be one and the same? But if they are, where does that leave the Carbon 14 test? New information about the behaviour of C14 in the atmosphere exists which was unknown 28 years ago when the Shroud was dated. A new hypothesis has come forward that could explain how genuinely old linen could produce a much younger date in certain conditions. Enjoy! www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfUE9AkIPTI
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Aug 1, 2016 11:36:39 GMT
In 1988, the Carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin identified the most famous relic in Christendom as a fake. But since then, despite many attempts, no one has been able to determine who the forger was or how it might have been done. In this outstanding BBC documentary, Rageh Omaar sets out to find out exactly what it is about the image that has defied imitation and explores new evidence that challenges the verdict on the Shroud. With unique access to the Shroud itself and those closest to it, Rageh goes on his own journey of discovery. He also visits the leader of the 1978 US investigation that was given access to the cloth for a week, Dr John Jackson, who reveals the results from the data collected and a lifetime of research. Two other Shrouds of Christ have existed at different times down the centuries. One is the Shroud of Constantinople, described as having an image of Christ and stolen by the Crusaders in 1204. The Turin Shroud appeared 150 years later in the family of one of those Crusaders. The other is the Shroud of Jerusalem that wrapped Jesus' body. With the help of a team of international scholars Rageh explores new evidence that links the Turin Shroud to both locations and times. Could they be one and the same? But if they are, where does that leave the Carbon 14 test? New information about the behaviour of C14 in the atmosphere exists which was unknown 28 years ago when the Shroud was dated. A new hypothesis has come forward that could explain how genuinely old linen could produce a much younger date in certain conditions. Enjoy! www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfUE9AkIPTIWell, that's an hour of my life I'll never get back. I had to wade through about 50 minutes of the usual pseudo science and whacko "history" of the Shroud believers to finally get to the bit about "new information about the behaviour of C14 in the atmosphere" that supposedly "could explain how genuinely old linen could produce a much younger date in certain conditions". This dumbed down "documentary", with its breathless and seemingly clueless presenter, skips over any actual science here but that doesn't really matter. Because when we get to the bit where they carbon date bits of linen in the hope that they show this carbon monoxide contamination may have skewed the dating of the Shroud the results say ... no. Ooops. So they just made this pointless "documentary" anyway, ended it with some waffle about how the Shroud will "continue to pose questions" and tried to pretend they had said ... something or other. What a pile of crap.
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Aug 4, 2016 6:12:16 GMT
So I take it that you were not impressed.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Aug 4, 2016 7:39:21 GMT
So I take it that you were not impressed. *chuckle* Did you watch it? Even by the standards of crappy "let's imply this mysterious object/event/claim might be legitimate even though it's pretty clear it isn't" documentaries, this was terrible. And I think the presenter also featured in a similar quality documentary about Jesus' supposed backpacking trip to India which consisted of various Indian "holy men" assuring him that Jesus did go to India and the clueless presenter unsceptically believing them - for about half an hour. Amazing stuff.
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Aug 4, 2016 8:30:02 GMT
So I take it that you were not impressed. *chuckle* Did you watch it? Even by the standards of crappy "let's imply this mysterious object/event/claim might be legitimate even though it's pretty clear it isn't" documentaries, this was terrible. And I think the presenter also featured in a similar quality documentary about Jesus' supposed backpacking trip to India which consisted of various Indian "holy men" assuring him that Jesus did go to India and the clueless presenter unsceptically believing them - for about half an hour. Amazing stuff. I saw one on the shroud some months ago (probably around Easter) on SBS or ABC. In the promo it led you to believe that there was new information on it. The doco ended up concluding that it was medieval (C14 retests) and they speculated that the image was done with some sort of camera. It certainly did not live up to the hype. I do not have the greatest broadband package so I will not bother with the video.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Aug 4, 2016 9:15:02 GMT
*chuckle* Did you watch it? Even by the standards of crappy "let's imply this mysterious object/event/claim might be legitimate even though it's pretty clear it isn't" documentaries, this was terrible. And I think the presenter also featured in a similar quality documentary about Jesus' supposed backpacking trip to India which consisted of various Indian "holy men" assuring him that Jesus did go to India and the clueless presenter unsceptically believing them - for about half an hour. Amazing stuff. I saw one on the shroud some months ago (probably around Easter) on SBS or ABC. In the promo it led you to believe that there was new information on it. The doco ended up concluding that it was medieval (C14 retests) and they speculated that the image was done with some sort of camera. It certainly did not live up to the hype. I do not have the greatest broadband package so I will not bother with the video. I remember when the C14 test results came out in 1988, confirming all the other evidence that it's a medieval fake, confidently declaring that was the end of the whole Shroud thing. How naive I was. In my defence, I was only 21 and had yet to realise the depths of peoples' capacity for believing in patent nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by himself on Aug 18, 2016 2:01:43 GMT
The doco ended up concluding that it was medieval (C14 retests) and they speculated that the image was done with some sort of camera. That would be a medieval camera. Of some sort.
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Aug 18, 2016 5:18:28 GMT
The doco ended up concluding that it was medieval (C14 retests) and they speculated that the image was done with some sort of camera. That would be a medieval camera. Of some sort. Yep.
|
|
Mike D
Master of the Arts
Posts: 204
|
Post by Mike D on Aug 18, 2016 7:10:14 GMT
That would be a medieval camera. Of some sort. Yep. Not aliens?
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Aug 19, 2016 5:41:23 GMT
No. The doco actually suggested that the image was made by a medieval room size camera.
|
|
Mike D
Master of the Arts
Posts: 204
|
Post by Mike D on Aug 19, 2016 8:23:20 GMT
Did it address issues like the strange proportions of the figure on the shroud, or was it mostly concerned with the method used to make the image?
|
|
|
Post by himself on Aug 19, 2016 18:09:36 GMT
Fascinating. And this camera was never used again to create any other bogus relics?
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Aug 19, 2016 21:08:21 GMT
Fascinating. And this camera was never used again to create any other bogus relics? Exactly. That and the fact that the dimensions of the head and the positions of the arms don't work anatomically work against this interpretation. The evidence of the D'Arcis memo says that the artist was found and that the Shroud was "cunningly painted". That is the only likely line of inquiry.
|
|
|
Post by domics on Aug 20, 2016 10:07:46 GMT
Exactly. That and the fact that the dimensions of the head and the positions of the arms don't work anatomically work against this interpretation. The evidence of the D'Arcis memo says that the artist was found and that the Shroud was "cunningly painted". That is the only likely line of inquiry. Do you know Charles Freeeman's interpretation of the Shroud as an image create for Easter ceremonies and so not as a deliberate fake (only later it was claimed it was the real shroud of Christ)? www.historytoday.com/charles-freeman/origins-shroud-turin
|
|