It doesnt look like there is a place to respond to this article but I will respond here. If its between CNN and Fox I still have to choose Fox Rick cause I cant vote for the democratic party especially with them taking out God out of the DNC platform. Its a shame that the guy who wrote this article wasnt fired for terrible research.
Im not a Romney Fan either but Obama is Obama.
http://www.shroudfaq.com/114.htm
In referece to the wikipedia text, the Pierre d'Arcis memorandum (14th century) what was being written at the time challenges the memorandum. Pierre's peers doubted his veracity and questioned his motives.
It was all about money. Pierre was the bishop of Troyes. The Shroud was being exhibited at nearby Lirey; and it was to that
town that pilgrims with bags of coins were flocking.
Scientific data, proves without any doubt, that the shroud does not contain any paint pigments in sufficient quantities to
form an image, makes the entire claim moot.
http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Crazy/darcis.html
A French bishop, Pierre d'Arcis, was trying to stop and exhibit of the Shroud. He drafted a letter to the pope claiming that
an artist had confessed to painting it. Not many people took him seriously then. Not many historians do not take him
seriously today.
Several documents have been discovered that challenge both his honesty as well as his motives. Pilgrims were the problem.
Rather than visiting his cathedral in the city of Troyes, France, they were visiting the small church in Lirey to see the
purported burial shroud of Christ. And that is where they were spending their money. Money was needed for ongoing
construction on the cathedral. There were shrines for four saints, although, admittedly, no one seemed to know who two of
them were. Troyes was famous as the founding city of the by then outlawed Knights Templar.
Though Pierre was possibly not the first to challenge the authenticity of the Shroud, he certainly wasn't the last.
The document is still referenced by skeptics even though its contents are suspect; even though it has now been scientifically
proved that the Shroud was not painted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrmA1H6wFPU
In fact none of the copies of the letter have been proven genuine, and none of the copies of the letter are signed or dated.
There is no proof t5hat the pope ever saw it, or that it was ever delivered to him. In fact the pope allow it to be exhibited
the whole time. There is also no evidence that it is in the handwriting of the bishop it is claimed to be. It is simply
estimated that is it from 1389. The artist or forger is not named, and there is no transcript of any official investigation.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebatesOn ... sage/24086
Shroud of Turin is not a Painting
In 1978, Walter McCrone claimed that he found some chemicals that are consistent
with tempura paint. However, he is the only scientist, among many who have
examined actual fibers from the Shroud, to make this claim. Every other
scientist who who has actually examined the Shroud of Turin (or some of the
collected fibers and particles) disputes his findings. See Ray Rogers'
explanation below. Also see: Walter McCrone and the Shroud of Turin and The
d'Arcis Memorandum
Now, in 2004, we know that the images are the result of a complex carbon bond
within a very thin layer of starch and saccharides that coat the outermost
fibers of the cloth. The Shroud, under the supervision of several scientists,
was observed with visible and ultraviolet spectrometry, infrared spectrometry,
x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, and thermography. Fiber observations were made
by pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry, lasermicroprobe Raman analyses, and
microchemical testing. No evidence for pigments or painting media was found.
See: Pictures of Jesus on the Shroud of Turin
Ray Rogers (see curriculum vitae summary below) responds to the question: "How
do you know that the image on the Shroud of Turin was not painted?"
The primary goal of STURP [The Shroud of Turin Research Project in 1978] was to
test the hypothesis that the Shroud's image was painted, as claimed by Bishop
d'Arcis in 1389. If it had been painted, some colored material had to be added
to the cloth, but the colored material would have gone through the fire of 1532.
The pigments and vehicles would have suffered changes in response to the
heating, the pyrolysis products, and the water used to put the fire out. No
changes in image color could be observed at scorch margins.
We tested all pigments and media that were known to have been used before 1532
by heating them on linen up to the temperature of char formation. All of the
materials were changed by heat and/or the chemically reducing and reactive
pyrolysis products. Some Medieval painting materials become water soluble, and
they would have moved with the water that diffused through parts of the cloth as
the fire was being extinguished. Observations of the Shroud in 1978 showed that
nothing in the image moved with the water.
The Shroud was observed by visible and ultraviolet spectrometry, infrared
spectrometry, x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, and thermography. Later
observations were made by pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry, lasermicroprobe Raman
analyses, and microchemical testing. No evidence for pigments or media was
found.
Your eye sees colors when the surface absorbs some wavelengths of light and
reflects others. A red surface absorbs all visible wavelengths other than red.
Each chemical compound absorbs wavelengths that are characteristic of its
chemical structure. The best way to determine the properties of a color is by
measuring its spectrum. Reflectance spectrometry was one of the most important
contributions of the STURP observations.
The reflectance spectra in the visible range for the image, blood, and hematite
are shown in the figure. The image could not have been painted with hematite or
any of the other known pigments. The spectrum of the image color does not show
any specific features: it gradually changes through the spectrum. This proves
that it is composed of many different light-absorbing chemical structures. It
has the properties of a dehydrated carbohydrate.
There is no evidence for significant amounts of any of the many pigments and/or
dyes that could have been used to paint or touch up the blood stains. We had
considered and studied Tyrian purple (6,6'-dibromoindigo) and Madder root dye on
an aluminum and/or chromium mordant as well as cinnabar (mercuric sulfide) and
ferric oxide pigments.
During and before the 14th Century, gold metal was the most important yellow.
That would easily be detected by x-ray fluorescence. Other pigments in common
use were yellow ocher (hydrated Fe2O3), burnt ocher (hematite Fe2O3) and other
ochers, orpiment (As2S3), realgar (AsS), Naples Yellow (Pb3[SbO4]), massicot
(PbO), and mosaic gold (SnS2). Organic dyes included saffron, bile yellow,
buckthorn, and weld. Madder root began appearing in Europe from the Near East
about that time. Many of the dyes required mordants, which are hydrated oxides
of several metals (e.g., aluminum, iron, and chromium). In order to produce the
shadings observed in the Shroud's image, the concentrations of pigments would
have to vary across the image. No variations in any pigment were observed by
x-ray fluorescence spectrometry. The image was not painted with any inorganic
pigment of an appropriate color.
http://www.factsplusfacts.com/shroud-of ... inting.htm
All of these facts dont even count the hungarian pray codex which was here about 160 years before this supposed letter and the shroud head image blood stains matching the sudarian blood stains in congruence making the shroud at least as old as the sudarium. This is one of the most ignorant articles ever written.