Only about one or two years ago I saw a NOVA special on it. I thought it was
very good and they were pretty much still scratching their heads at the end.
I remember they had one guy on there that was debunking every "proof" but he
didn't sound very credible at all; he sounded like he had a personal reason
to refuse to believe any of the data more than a professional one.
Apparently it has recently been tested some more with some newer techniques.
For example a pollen expert said it had definately been in the middle east
and there were some surprising findings about that. I can't remember any
details my memory doesn't work so well anymore. I'd advise you to look on
their website, I bet you can still buy a copy. It had me convinced only
because they couldn't prove it a fake, if someone faked it hundreds or
thousands of years ago, I think they'd be able to prove it was a fake, way
before now with our current science. Doesn't seem possible to me.
>From: "Freeman, Louise Margaret" <email@example.com>
>To: asa <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: The Shroud of Turin
>Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 08:30:41 -0400
>I'm interested in the opinions of other scientists on this one. When I was
>teenager I read everything I could get my hands on about this (of course,
>was when my career goal was to be a professional Bigfoot hunter, but that's
>As I grew older, I lost interest, though I remember seeing news reports
>the Catholic church has officially accepted the results of radio-carbon
>that place the Shroud too recent to be authentic.
>So, in your opinion, is the shroud
>A) the authentic burial cloth of Jesus, the image unexplianable by science
>therefore an unmistakable "fingerprint" of the resurrection?
>B) a fraudelent "artifact" created in the Middle Ages.. their version of
>"day missing in time" myth?
>C) something else
>D) Jury's still out.
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 29 2002 - 16:55:47 EDT