This obviously does not by default provide proof of origin, only another independent scientific review validating that this was unlikley a medieval forgery.....

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/22/9636065-was-holy-shroud-created-in-a-flash-italian-researchers-resurrect-claim

"Sadly, we have seen many claims spread in the Web made by journalist/bloggers that discuss the content of a paper they never read," lead researcher Paolo Di Lazzaro told me today in an email. "It is obvious that a serious scientific work cannot prove any supernatural action. We have shown that the most advanced technology available today is unable to replicate all the characteristics of the Shroud image. As a consequence, we may argue it appears unlikely a forger may have done this image with technologies available in the Middle Ages or earlier. The probability the Shroud is a medieval fake is really low. In this sense, the Shroud image is still a scientific challenge."

Merry Christmas

inb4 the christians start telling us this is proof of god ......



"Paolo Di Lazzaro claims the Turin 'Shroud' coloration depth is 0.2 micrometers, but surely he does not claim that that was uniformly measured throughout the cloth. The coloration indeed appears to be generally confined to the topmost fibrils (although the face image does show faintly on the back of the cloth). Using a two-part hypothesis I put forward in 1983, Italian chemist Luigi Garlaschelli has produced a replica shroud with such superficial staining. So let me ask Lazzaro a question in turn: Have you been able, using your high-intensity ultraviolet laser technique, to produce a replica shroud yourself? Until you do, shouldn’t you stop slashing carelessly with Occam’s razor?"

When the easy answers are present, deny, deny, deny.

Do you habitually leave out context that changes the entire point of the article?


So basically, this research group has found the the probability that the Shroud is a fake is low. Hey, that sounds important! But wait... they started off by assuming that the previous research which has shown that the Shroud could have been created with pigments on linen was wrong? So basically, they're making a completely unjustified assumption in order to come to a conclusion that justifies their belief that the Shroud might very well be legitimate.

This is non-news. Previous research still shows that the Shroud could have been created with pigments on linen. You don't need to use UV light to make the Shroud, so this study is intellectually dishonest. No surprise, there.

I did no such thing, you merely used your bias and prejudices to form this opinion



And Again, you twist the facts in the Entirity of the article to fit your desired outcome. Kinda sad really, I expected a little more from you. I guess the concept of a 5 year study/peer review process only suits you when it fits what you want?

You actually DID that exact thing. That article does not suggest that the Shroud of Turin must be real. It correctly states that this new research group concluded with this method that it could not have been forged using UV light. The article also correctly states that this research group completely ignored previous research which has detailed how the Shroud could have been forged using much simpler methods. This is not an opinion. This is a fact.

Hello?



That's from your article. Let's not ignore facts here or anything.

This post was edited by piddywiffle on Jan 3 2012 09:58am

But could they fake it on a tortilla?

Only with chicken. The beef experiments fell through.

From my selective reading of your post, I have concluded that the Tortilla Shroud could not be replicated with beef, therefore Tortilla Shroud must not be faked.