Shroud turin carbon dating 2016 who is andrew garfield dating now
People in fact did go in there with the opinion that it probably was a painting..idea that anybody went in there trying to prove that it wasn't a painting is bizarre, because all one has to do is look at the tests that were carried out.It is clear that we were trying to find out what type of a painting it really was.It was a scientist by the name of John Heller that did that........ A) Well it will certainly tell us what the date of the cloth is..won't tell us what the date of the image is...will only tell us the date of the cloth...If the cloth dates to the first century, well it certainly continues to add to the argument that it is not a 14th century artifact.In 1978 a large team of American scientists under the auspices of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) spent over two years prior to embarking for Turin, planning a large number of specific data gathering tests, on the sacred Shroud of Turin, believed by millions of Catholics around the world to be the shroud in which the body of Christ was wrapped following his crucifixion.In Turin, the expedition was joined by colleagues from around the world.A) Well, what we did was to run not one test but a variety of tests for blood; we used one of the oldest known tests for blood forensically which was to see if one can generate the compound that produces the color of blood, this compound is called ' porphyrin' it is the same stuff that makes grass green. Not only have we gotten them but an Italian investigator has independently confirmed our tests and has also got immunological tests for blood. The tests we ran are more indicative than some of the tests that people routinely run.Some of the tests that people run for blood depend on the blood being fresh, the tests that I ran where we detected the so-called porphyrin is a test that does not depend on the blood being fresh, it is now being used more by people for the arch metric detection of blood.
Actually, the tests that were done in ‘78 were really a very good set of tests; people made the best guesses they could, designed the best experiments they could design on the basis of that..we established a lot of things.
We know what the chemistry of the image is - we think we know what the chemistry of the blood is..think that makes sense in terms of what one would expect of the pathological properties for one who was crucified, but the interesting thing is with all the work that we have done on it, we still can't suggest a simple process by which the image and the blood could have been put on the cloth by the same process...
we now feel quite strongly that the blood got there by being in contact with a wounded body..it is quite clear that the image had to go on there by a different process.
It is very important that we established that it WASN'T a painting!
Of course, a lot of the tests were designed to find out what kind of a painting was it.