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

[Bungle_Bear]

The repair was done by a very unique technique...this has been documented.

Citation should be easy to provide, then.

 

[Lulav]

Yes there was a specific weaving technique that was used to match the original shrouds fabric. They respected it so much that after the damage from the fire they wanted to keep it as close to the original as possible. It's called a French invisible weave. It was done while in France for a small period.

 

[Lulav]

French weaving, also known as invisible weaving, is the type of reweaving used to restore small holes, tears and burns in fabric. Threads are taken from a hidden area of the garment and carefully woven horizontally and vertically over the damaged area, restoring the damaged fabric.


New Historical Evidence Explaining the “Invisible Patch”
in the 1988 C-14 Sample Area of the Turin Shroud

1
Preface: This paper was peer-reviewed by two scholarly history journals, Viator and the
Journal of Medieval History. Neither journal suggested any major or substantive
corrections. The minor amendments suggested by the peer reviewers were included in
the final version of this paper.
New Historical Evidence Explaining the “Invisible Patch”
in the 1988 C-14 Sample Area of the Turin Shroud
By M. Sue Benford and Joseph Marino
©2005 All Rights Reserved
Introduction
At the Sindone 2000 Worldwide Congress in Orvieto, Italy, the authors posited
that a 16th Century “invisible patch” had skewed the 1988 Carbon-14 (C-14) sample of
the Turin Shroud. Many critics of this theory have scoffed at the idea of an invisible
repair, as if it does not, or even could not, exist. This criticism extends even from the
world-renowned textile expert, Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, who was the overseer of the
2002 restoration. In response to a communication from us, she stated that it was
“technically impossible” (Flury-Lemberg, 2000). In a book about the restoration, she
concluded that “reweaving in the literal sense does not exist” and confidently stated that
any mend would be visible on the back side of the garment (Flury-Lemberg, 2003). She
continued to pronounce publicly at the Third International Dallas Shroud Conference
held 8-11 September 2005 that there is no reweave. (Her use of the term “reweave”
seems to be a concession to the fact that it is a term that everyone understands and uses.)
In an email to the authors dated September 22, 2005, she further expl

Continue reading here

 

[Lost4words]

Yes there was a specific weaving technique that was used to match the original shrouds fabric. They respected it so much that after the damage from the fire they wanted to keep it as close to the original as possible. It's called a French invisible weave. It was done while in France for a small period.

Yes, this is what i have read too.

 

[essentialsaltes]

1
Preface: This paper was peer-reviewed by two scholarly history journals, Viator and the
Journal of Medieval History. Neither journal suggested any major or substantive
corrections.

Haha, that's a funny way to say it was rejected for publication.

 

[Carl Emerson]

The shroud violates the First Commandment.

The image was not 'graven'

 

[Whyayeman]

Well, this scholarly work has settled ... nothing. But carry on!

 

[Lulav]

Haha, that's a funny way to say it was rejected for publication.

Did you read the full 16 pages? It shows how she was refuted.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

French weaving, also known as invisible weaving, is the type of reweaving used to restore small holes, tears and burns in fabric. Threads are taken from a hidden area of the garment and carefully woven horizontally and vertically over the damaged area, restoring the damaged fabric.


New Historical Evidence Explaining the “Invisible Patch”
in the 1988 C-14 Sample Area of the Turin Shroud

1
Preface: This paper was peer-reviewed by two scholarly history journals, Viator and the
Journal of Medieval History. Neither journal suggested any major or substantive
corrections. The minor amendments suggested by the peer reviewers were included in
the final version of this paper.
New Historical Evidence Explaining the “Invisible Patch”
in the 1988 C-14 Sample Area of the Turin Shroud
By M. Sue Benford and Joseph Marino
©2005 All Rights Reserved
Introduction
At the Sindone 2000 Worldwide Congress in Orvieto, Italy, the authors posited
that a 16th Century “invisible patch” had skewed the 1988 Carbon-14 (C-14) sample of
the Turin Shroud. Many critics of this theory have scoffed at the idea of an invisible
repair, as if it does not, or even could not, exist. This criticism extends even from the
world-renowned textile expert, Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, who was the overseer of the
2002 restoration. In response to a communication from us, she stated that it was
“technically impossible” (Flury-Lemberg, 2000). In a book about the restoration, she
concluded that “reweaving in the literal sense does not exist” and confidently stated that
any mend would be visible on the back side of the garment (Flury-Lemberg, 2003). She
continued to pronounce publicly at the Third International Dallas Shroud Conference
held 8-11 September 2005 that there is no reweave. (Her use of the term “reweave”
seems to be a concession to the fact that it is a term that everyone understands and uses.)
In an email to the authors dated September 22, 2005, she further expl

Continue reading here

That's the assertion, but where's the evidence? It's one thing to say "this may have happened", it's an entirely different thing to demonstrate that it did actually happen. While an invisible repair may be undetectable to the naked eye, these repairs are detectable by microscopic examination. They performed a microscopic examination and found no evidence of such a repair.

The logical conclusion, therefore, is that there was no repair. Alternatively, as the sindonologists have done, you can decide that the repair was so well done as to leave no evidence - in which case, how do you know there was a repair?

While you puzzle over that conundrum also consider that there were (if memory serves correctly) about 30 other patches easily detected which were removed during restoration in the 1970s. So your claim seems to be that there were lots of easily discovered repairs, and this one undiscoverable repair. Does that seem likely to you?

 

[Mountainmike]

Haha, that's a funny way to say it was rejected for publication.

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.

but there’s the thing.

The two journals Radiocarbon who rejected it, and Archeometry are owned by two of the labs who made a botch of the date.
the referees were the date botchers ( the same who refused to release raw data, which was unheard of even then)

If anyone thought they smelled a rat when the figures in nature didn’t add up - the refusal to release data confirmed worst suspicions. The suspicions were verified when legal process to force a disclosure showed they had fiddled the figures.

Yet sceptics do like to hang on to the fiddled date.

 

[Mountainmike]

That's the assertion, but where's the evidence? It's one thing to say "this may have happened", it's an entirely different thing to demonstrate that it did actually happen. While an invisible repair may be undetectable to the naked eye, these repairs are detectable by microscopic examination. They performed a microscopic examination and found no evidence of such a repair.

The logical conclusion, therefore, is that there was no repair. Alternatively, as the sindonologists have done, you can decide that the repair was so well done as to leave no evidence - in which case, how do you know there was a repair?

While you puzzle over that conundrum also consider that there were (if memory serves correctly) about 30 other patches easily detected which were removed during restoration in the 1970s. So your claim seems to be that there were lots of easily discovered repairs, and this one undiscoverable repair. Does that seem likely to you?

If you had ever read the science you would see just such a thread splice.
numerous studies show intrinsic cotton which is not part of the main shroud.
that Is proof of repair, and that the dating sample was not representative,
As always you are totally ill informed bungle.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If you had ever read the science you would see just such a thread splice.
numerous studies show intrinsic cotton which is not part of the main shroud.
that Is proof of repair, and that the dating sample was not representative,
As always you are totally ill informed bungle.

Citation for the thread splice please.

Nobody is saying there is no cotton, but you are making claims of evidence of thread splicing.

 

[Whyayeman]

Whether the shroud can be dated by scientific means to be from the Biblical era or not really makes no difference. Showing conclusively that it dates from the First Century means nothing on its own until it can be traced to its origin - almost impossible scientifically. There would have to be contemporary documentation or archaeoligical evidence for that.

It is not the dating of the shroud that makes me sceptical, but the actual image. The image is held to be the image of Christ, imprinted on the fabric where it covered the face. Anybody who has any understanding of printing knows that it is impossible; all imprints of three-dimensional objects become distorted when rendered on a two-dimensional surface. You could try this at home with a doll's face, some watercolour paint and a piece of cloth - make your very own 'shroud'!

 

[essentialsaltes]

but there’s the thing.

The two journals Radiocarbon who rejected it, and Archeometry are owned by

Those are not the two journals in question. I quote again: "This paper was peer-reviewed by two scholarly history journals, Viator and the
Journal of Medieval History."

 

[Lulav]

Can't get this off my reply???

Haha, that's a funny way to say it was rejected for publication.

You are aware of the copywrite rules here at CF, aren't you?

 

[Lulav]

Many critics of this theory have scoffed at the idea of an invisible repair, as if it does not, or even could not, exist.

This criticism extends even from the world-renowned textile expert, Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, who was the overseer of the 2002 restoration. In response to a communication from us, she stated that it was
“technically impossible”

she concluded that “reweaving in the literal sense does not exist” and confidently stated that
any mend would be visible on the back side of the garment

She continued to pronounce publicly at the Third International Dallas Shroud Conference
held 8-11 September 2005 that there is no reweave.

The owner of a Service called 'Without a trace' who does invisible weaving services explained that interweaving is used today and while invisible on the front can be seen on the back.

However he states
The technique used in 16th Century Europe, called “French Weaving,” is an altogether
different technique from Inweaving.
French Weaving, now only done on small imperfections due to its extensive cost and time,
result in both front and back side “invisibility."

Please take the time to read the whole paper as it goes into great detail of tapestry care and the history of the shroud including the provenance of it while in France.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The owner of a Service called 'Without a trace' who does invisible weaving services explained that interweaving is used today and while invisible on the front can be seen on the back.

However he states
The technique used in 16th Century Europe, called “French Weaving,” is an altogether
different technique from Inweaving.
French Weaving, now only done on small imperfections due to its extensive cost and time,
result in both front and back side “invisibility."

Please take the time to read the whole paper as it goes into great detail of tapestry care and the history of the shroud including the provenance of it while in France.

What is it with you people who don't understand the papers you ask others to read? If you are so sure the paper provides evidence that an undetectable repair was performed, please quote the relevant passage. If such a passage does not exist, then perhaps it's you who needs to read the paper and understand what it doesn't say.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You are aware of the copywrite rules here at CF, aren't you?

Sure, I don't see how it's relevant. This paper was submitted to two journals. It was not accepted for publication. The revised paper, published on the World Wide Web, tries to put positive spin on this. That's both funny haha and funny weird.

 

[Lulav]

It is not the dating of the shroud that makes me skeptical, but the actual image. The image is held to be the image of Christ, imprinted on the fabric where it covered the face. Anybody who has any understanding of printing knows that it is impossible; all imprints of three-dimensional objects become distorted when rendered on a two-dimensional surface. You could try this at home with a doll's face, some watercolor paint and a piece of cloth - make your very own 'shroud'!

My reply disappeared. Anyway to answer your question, your hypothesis is not valid. You can't duplicate this at home.

As the video I posted says:

An experiment done at Sandia laboratories a sister lab to Los Alamos, also a weapons laboratory. And the X-ray expert over there had purchased a piece of equipment to see if he could get more information out of the x-rays he was making on a daily basis.​

​

This piece of equipment is called a VP8 Image analyzer and basically it takes an image input with a black and white video camera and displays it on a green screen monitor and the instrument itself allows you to take the lights and darks of the image and stretch them into 3D space proportionate to each other.​

​

So a normal photograph put in there you get as a jumble of shapes you get something but nothing realistic. The shroud image yields the natural relief of a human form and that is unique and consequently he said that the guys decided they were going to try and put a team together and see if they could get permission to examine the shroud of Turin and try and determine how that image formed on that cloth because it had some very unique properties, the one I just described particularly.​

 

[Whyayeman]

My reply disappeared. Anyway to answer your question, your hypothesis is not valid. You can't duplicate this at home.

As the video I posted says:

An experiment done at Sandia laboratories a sister lab to Los Alamos, also a weapons laboratory. And the X-ray expert over there had purchased a piece of equipment to see if he could get more information out of the x-rays he was making on a daily basis.​

​

This piece of equipment is called a VP8 Image analyzer and basically it takes an image input with a black and white video camera and displays it on a green screen monitor and the instrument itself allows you to take the lights and darks of the image and stretch them into 3D space proportionate to each other.​

​

So a normal photograph put in there you get as a jumble of shapes you get something but nothing realistic. The shroud image yields the natural relief of a human form and that is unique and consequently he said that the guys decided they were going to try and put a team together and see if they could get permission to examine the shroud of Turin and try and determine how that image formed on that cloth because it had some very unique properties, the one I just described particularly.​

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.