More evidence the shroud of Turin is ancient - around 2000 years old.

[Lulav]

That is my point really. It is certainly not possible to recreate a doll's face that way. At home it is perfectly easy to do this experiment. Paint a doll's face with any paint which will stay wet for a while. Wrap the face in a piece of cloth - cotton or linen might be best, to replicate the shroud. Give it a little gentle pressure. Peel it away carefully. There will be a transfer of paint to the cloth.

There it is, your very own proof that the image of a three-dimensional object is distorted when printed onto a two-dimensional medium.

But that's the thing. The cloth was not wrapped around the body. It was laid out, a very long piece, then the body was laid upon it, covered with the herbs and spices and then the remaining cloth was laid over it. It was not bound as it would usually have been done. That is why the women came after the Sabbath to finish preparing the body.

No pressure was needed. But the image was not distorted. According to the machine used it shows a 3 dimensional image that is proportionate with the depth of space between the cloth just laid over it and the body.

 

[Lulav]

Rejection for publication - that was what happened to Marino and benfords paper , whose science was subsequently confirmed, as a first step on the long road to the total discrediting of the RC date.

https://rationalfaith.com/video/shroudevidence/clips/Benford-Marino-French-Invisible-Reweaving.mp4

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Rejection for publication - that was what happened to Marino and benfords paper , whose science was subsequently confirmed, as a first step on the long road to the total discrediting of the RC date.

https://rationalfaith.com/video/shroudevidence/clips/Benford-Marino-French-Invisible-Reweaving.mp4

Awesome. Now let's see the paper where the "science was subsequently confirmed."

 

[Whyayeman]

I do not think that makes any difference to the experiment. Just lay the cloth on the doll's face.

The shroud cannot be any sort of contact print. My experiment shows that the image cannot have come from contact with a corpse. So, how was it made? There are no signs of pigment, just a selective fading of the surface fibres.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...There are no signs of pigment, just a selective fading of the surface fibres.

Opinions differ on the issue of SoT pigments - for example, Blood reinforced by pigments.

 

[Whyayeman]

Opinions differ on the issue of SoT pigments - for example, Blood reinforced by pigments.

OK. I was thinking of the image of the face. The so-called likeness appears not to have been painted.

 

[Lulav]

I do not think that makes any difference to the experiment. Just lay the cloth on the doll's face.

The shroud cannot be any sort of contact print. My experiment shows that the image cannot have come from contact with a corpse. So, how was it made? There are no signs of pigment, just a selective fading of the surface fibres.

OK. I was thinking of the image of the face. The so-called likeness appears not to have been painted.

That's the thing, it is not a contact print, at least on the front. But the image was made, I believe from some kind of radiation from within. Some say the teeth can actually be seen which bolsters up that hypothesis.
Also another thing to consider - traces of dirt on the man's feet, which have been subjected to chemical analysis published in a peer-reviewed secular chemistry journal, were noted to be from a species of limestone that is found almost exclusively in Jerusalem.

 

[Whyayeman]

That's the thing, it is not a contact print, at least on the front. But the image was made, I believe from some kind of radiation from within. Some say the teeth can actually be seen which bolsters up that hypothesis.
Also another thing to consider - traces of dirt on the man's feet, which have been subjected to chemical analysis published in a peer-reviewed secular chemistry journal, were noted to be from a species of limestone that is found almost exclusively in Jerusalem.

'Some kind of radiation from within' is what people want it to be: that is, a miraculous event. Such a phenomenon is beyond the scope of the physical sciences, of course, so believers will never be impressed with scientific enquiries which do not confirm their belief. Interestingly, there is always a deal of acceptance of the science which does not rule out the necessary dating.

The dirt on the shroud, along with the evidence that the material was from the First Century is circumstantial evidence; even if shown beyond doubt to be true it does not come near to a proof that the shroud was ever anywhere near the corpse of Christ.

It is, I think, an unsolvable puzzle. For the faithful proof is superfluous; for the rest of us, interesting.

 

[Lulav]

'Some kind of radiation from within' is what people want it to be: that is, a miraculous event. Such a phenomenon is beyond the scope of the physical sciences, of course, so believers will never be impressed with scientific enquiries which do not confirm their belief. Interestingly, there is always a deal of acceptance of the science which does not rule out the necessary dating.

The dirt on the shroud, along with the evidence that the material was from the First Century is circumstantial evidence; even if shown beyond doubt to be true it does not come near to a proof that the shroud was ever anywhere near the corpse of Christ.

It is, I think, an unsolvable puzzle. For the faithful proof is superfluous; for the rest of us, interesting.

I think it would be a non scientific thing, it can't be duplicated for proof. That is where faith comes in.
Thing is If I remember correctly Roman law called for one of two things for an accused. One was the beating and the other was crucifixion, but not both. From what is seen on the shroud as the blood stains it shows not only a crucified man but also one that was beaten to within an inch of his life. It's no wonder he couldn't carry the cross piece, some have tried to count the wounds and have come up with over 600.

But even if the Romans had done both to someone would they also have put on his head a crown of thorns?

 

[Whyayeman]

I think it would be a non scientific thing, it can't be duplicated for proof. That is where faith comes in.
Thing is If I remember correctly Roman law called for one of two things for an accused. One was the beating and the other was crucifixion, but not both. From what is seen on the shroud as the blood stains it shows not only a crucified man but also one that was beaten to within an inch of his life. It's no wonder he couldn't carry the cross piece, some have tried to count the wounds and have come up with over 600.

But even if the Romans had done both to someone would they also have put on his head a crown of thorns?

Maybe people still prefer to think the evidence supports the claim. To arrive at the conclusions made about what happened before the death of the (putative) corpse from the evidence they have to make enormous assumptions. Better to believe it is miraculous; then no dubious evidence or even more dubious claims based on it are necessary.

 

[Lulav]

It is, I think, an unsolvable puzzle. For the faithful proof is superfluous; for the rest of us, interesting.

I think when you add up the impossibilities you have to look at it through Occam's razor.

• The image took hundreds of years to be able to be seen clearly with photography.
• There are traces of nature on it that are found only in Israel and some Jerusalem specifically.
• The image is not paint, it is one half the thickness of a hair. Paint can't be applied like that. (I'm an artist and also know a bit about fabric and fabric painting. )

"Dr. Alan Adler, chemistry professor from Western Connecticut State University, is in agreement with Dr. Barbet, saying that there is no paint, stain, or dye on the Shroud. Rather, Dr. Adler says, the image is from a dehydrative oxidation process to the cellulose of the cloth, and this process chemically changed the top linen fibers at a width of half that of a human hair."​

​

The image on the Shroud is uniquely three-dimensional. When it was put under the VP-8 Image Analyzer, which had only recently been created for NASA, it created a full, three-dimensional image. According to the inventor of the technology, Peter Schumacher, “Only the Shroud of Turin has produced these results from a VP-8 Image Analyzer”

The blood on the cloth is real, not paint.

This is a good paper that succinctly breaks down more of the affirmatives only a 7 minute read, you should take a few and read it.

 

[Lulav]

One thing I haven't seen brought up anywhere is the position of the body. The knees are drawn up which would support crucifixion as well as the wounds.

 

[Whyayeman]

I think when you add up the impossibilities you have to look at it through Occam's razor.

• The image took hundreds of years to be able to be seen clearly with photography.
• There are traces of nature on it that are found only in Israel and some Jerusalem specifically.
• The image is not paint, it is one half the thickness of a hair. Paint can't be applied like that. (I'm an artist and also know a bit about fabric and fabric painting. )

"Dr. Alan Adler, chemistry professor from Western Connecticut State University, is in agreement with Dr. Barbet, saying that there is no paint, stain, or dye on the Shroud. Rather, Dr. Adler says, the image is from a dehydrative oxidation process to the cellulose of the cloth, and this process chemically changed the top linen fibers at a width of half that of a human hair."​

​

The image on the Shroud is uniquely three-dimensional. When it was put under the VP-8 Image Analyzer, which had only recently been created for NASA, it created a full, three-dimensional image. According to the inventor of the technology, Peter Schumacher, “Only the Shroud of Turin has produced these results from a VP-8 Image Analyzer”

The blood on the cloth is real, not paint.

This is a good paper that succinctly breaks down more of the affirmatives only a 7 minute read, you should take a few and read it.

I have read it. It is interesting. Much of what it covers I have come across before, though the three-dimensioal image is not as convincing to me as it seems to be to you. I don't think the article has explained this very well. One point about the article - it is in a religious journal and I don't expect too much in the way of scepticicism from such a source. It reads as if the author is a true believer...

This has been an interesting discussion. I have had an opportunity to think - always good.

 

[Lulav]

I think the reason might be is because it is in the hands of NASA, not a religious institution. What I did find interesting is that they said that the shroud is the only thing that's behaved that way using that machine.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

OK. I was thinking of the image of the face. The so-called likeness appears not to have been painted.

Ah, OK - my mistake. From what I've read, the image is mainly discoloured cloth fibres. Microscopic analysis shows trace particles of red ochre, but they're not visible to the naked eye. One study shows that a fairly good approximation of the image can be obtained by lightly dabbing a slurry mixture of ochre and dilute acid onto a cloth draped over a suitably bearded volunteer and then baking and washing it (the cloth, not the volunteer).

Full details and overview of the subject are available here: Life-Size Reproduction of the Shroud of Turin and its Image [JOURNAL OF IMAGING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Volume: 54 | Article ID: art00002]

Full paper download here.