documentary and a great lover History, David Rolfe worked for the company audiovisual production English "Performancefilms" for which he produced hundreds of films. In 1976 he shot "The Silent Witness", the silent witness. A documentary that was devoted to the Shroud of Turin, for which he was awarded the British Academy Award. In 2008 he produced a new documentary for the BBC that call into question the conclusions of 1988 that had reached the study commissions on the relic. Ilsussidiario.net interviewed him about the alleged statements of some members of that Cicap, housed in an interview with the newspaper La Repubblica, claim to be able to demonstrate how the Shroud nothing is a medieval fake
Dr. Rolfe, what made you decide to make his documentary on the Shroud for the BBC?
Since early youth I had a deep interest in everything that surrounds the Holy Shroud. An interest that has been possible in the work that I realized in 1976 when I took my first completed documentary on the subject. It was a job that had evidence for planetary who won the British Academy Award. My passion for studies Shroud has never stopped. Making contact with the leaders of the International Center of Studies on the Shroud have been allowed and the good fortune to make a second documentary that the BBC in turn was very happy to provide.
Italy has caused a stir in an article in one of the major national newspapers that he questions the authenticity of the Shroud calling it a medieval artifact. For as you know the things you can say such a thing?
I too have had here in England the opportunity to look at the article and I must say that the claim of those scientists have discovered a method can be used from the medieval to create a fake is totally wrong. I would say two things about it. In the first place since it was built in the famous review of the C14 many have indulged in the most diverse thinking hypothesis on the creation of the Shroud. Over time, the view of many people has been fortified in the belief that it is a medieval artifact. In fact, the test of the C14 possibility that it was a relic of the Middle Ages were many. But my film as it shows there are several inconsistencies and several historical evidence of the Shroud before the date written examination.
The second observation is that the same professor Christopher Bronk Ramsey of Oxford University who conducted the test of carbon-14 two decades ago said that the issue should be reviewed for the many chemical and physical factors that might have influenced the yield test.
The method used by Professor Garlaschelli CICAP the center, was to use a linen fabric in a herringbone pattern, where a volunteer was lying to which they were dirty ocher parts of the body more important. For the time it was used a bas-relief of plaster. To age the other hand, flax fabric was heated for three hours at a temperature of 250 ° C and washed in a washing machine with water only. The method seems convincing?
Even Professor Garlaschelli, unknowingly, has shown that it can not be trusted with the procedure used for the reproduction of the image of the shroud. To be able to do something you have to make convincing an artificial relic that has all the same features of the image of the shroud. If you read carefully the article notes that Garlaschelli says, "with liquid temperature were then added to the signs of flogging and stains of blood." We got it right? After reproducing the image are placed on the blood. Evidently
Garlaschelli ignores that in 1978 it was found unequivocally that the blood on the Shroud has been poured out before the image was created.
is very easy, once you have an image of a body on a cloth, add the blood in the right places, but it is very difficult, once you put the first blood match image of that type. So the professor who had a claim to say that we have created an image with the same characteristics as the Shroud said something wrong because there are features in the Shroud that his copy did not.
Why do you think the scientific approach to the Shroud is often characterized by a Holocaust denier injury?
The method that science pursues often proceeds with negative evidence, it is rare that science leads to positive tests. And it's okay, because otherwise there is the danger of dogmatic assertions. When the shroud is presented under a scientific perspective brought with it an endless series evidence in favor of its authenticity. Then legions of scientists are presented with the intention to deny them one by one. But there is a fact. Those who maintain such a case, or want to start a study with such a method does not consider all factors compared to the Shroud. The Shroud, to be fully studied and understood, it needs the support of many other contributions from various fields of human knowledge. At stake is the history, geography, art history, chemistry, physics and much more. So I think it is very difficult for someone who has all these really in-depth knowledge to disprove the authenticity of the Shroud. While it is extremely likely that anyone who approaches the shroud with little knowledge and many misconceptions when it sought to find a reason or an excuse to deny the scientific validity of the find. But you will not find anyone who has studied the Shroud to the bottom and has the same attitude.
After completion of his documentary went on to investigate the mystery of the Shroud?
I am very happy to say that we have another project in his hands that we hope can be completed before the Exposition of 2010. This is a feature that will conclude the work we started last documentary and provide an explanation of the fact that the examination of the C14 who needs to be repeated. It's what I'm working harder at this time. (IlSussidiario)
0 comments:
Post a Comment