New study on Shroud of Turin concludes image could not have been painted, points to a violent death

[Mountainmike]

For those interested here is the recent paper.

Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin Shroud

 

[Papias]

You hang on to the long discredited incompetent dating,

False. The carbon dating is well confirmed, and all objections to it by those who want the artwork to be more than it is have failed.

I cited the actual data, with sources. You did not. Plus, you didn't address the other things brought up, like the fact that the shroud artwork itself shows that it's a fake, even if there were no testing on the material. Unless you seriously think that Jesus was a microcephalic freak with one arm longer than the other and both arms long like an orangutan.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Davidnic]

Can you explain how a medieval forger could make an image that science and art today can't reproduce? No one to my knowledge has claimed to be able to reproduce the hue and the depth of penetration on the fabric. All attempts I've ever read about have failed.

One person in the Middle Ages claiming to have done it is hardly proof that person told the truth. Lots of people today claim to do things for attention even if doing them would have gotten them in trouble.

And yes there are credible scientists that debate the dating. But it's not just the date that needs to be addressed it's also the method that produced the image.

 

[Davidnic]

Also you neglect to mention that Bishop Pierre d'Arcis letter was not taken seriously by the Pope. And there were reasons for that involving the politics of the time and the Shroud taking pilgrims away from his own area. So a Bishop claiming for his own advantage that an unnamed person who no one but the bishop ever met made the shroud... It's not slam dunk evidence.

It would be interesting to take whatever means were available to this person and contrast them against the means necessary to produce the image. But since the person was never named and the image so far has not been able to be reproduced.... That's hard to do.

Also Bishop Pierre d'Arcis is further compromised by the fact that he made a claim that Bishop Henri proved the shroud a painted forgery. But the verifiable historical record proves that wrong. So we have a bishop who stood to gain financially lying about another bishop and claiming an unknown Forger. And the Pope dismissing his letter.

So the whole admitted forger angle is not really watertight.

I have no idea if the Shroud is real. But I know it is not as open and shut as many people would like it to be.

 

[Basil the Great]

Even if it is a fake, it is still a historical fact that one like this was in the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople around the year 1000.

 

[bill5]

Don't see what the fascination is why should people tamper with an item that Christ was buried in.

You answered your own question.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Maybe one day we can get our shroud back?

 

[Papias]

Science have stated that no paint has been used. Plus, only the very top vibes of the linen have been touched! Impossible to recreate.

From the other thread, it has been reproduced, using paint, nearly 10 years ago. My previous post showed that science has indeed shown that paint was used, so it's no surprise that paint succeeded in reproducing it.

"We have shown that is possible to reproduce something which has the same characteristics as the Shroud," Luigi Garlaschelli, who is due to illustrate the results at a conference on the paranormal this weekend in northern Italy, said on Monday.​

A professor of organic chemistry at the University of Pavia, Garlaschelli made available to Reuters the paper he will deliver and the accompanying comparative photographs.
Shroud of Turin replicated by Italian scientist using ancient techniques may prove the relic a fake

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Davidnic]

Except they couldn't reproduce the level to which it was sunk into the cloth. And other experts who refuted that attempt at reproduction.

 

[Davidnic]

Stephen Jones’ Take on the Garlaschelli Fake

 

[LivingWordUnity]

 

[Goatee]

From the other thread, it has been reproduced, using paint, nearly 10 years ago. My previous post showed that science has indeed shown that paint was used, so it's no surprise that paint succeeded in reproducing it.

"We have shown that is possible to reproduce something which has the same characteristics as the Shroud," Luigi Garlaschelli, who is due to illustrate the results at a conference on the paranormal this weekend in northern Italy, said on Monday.​

A professor of organic chemistry at the University of Pavia, Garlaschelli made available to Reuters the paper he will deliver and the accompanying comparative photographs.
Shroud of Turin replicated by Italian scientist using ancient techniques may prove the relic a fake

In Christ-

Papias

Failed Attempt to Duplicate Shroud

 

[Davidnic]

Experts question scientist’s claim of reproducing Shroud of Turin

 

[Goatee]

Garlaschelli received funding for his work by an Italian association of atheists and agnostics but said it had no effect on his results.

Really?

 

[LivingWordUnity]

"Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you."- Mt 7:6

 

[Papias]

Experts question scientist’s claim of reproducing Shroud of Turin

Good to see more points. The differences raised in the article are expected and predictable based on the shroud itself.

• The paint is deeper on the modern shroud - as expected, since the Middle ages shroud had faded due to age, and the new one was faded by washing.
• The blood is on top of the paint instead of vice versa - not a surprise - this suggests that the middle ages painting was made by putting the blood stains on first (OK).
• The dimensions of the person are in different proportions - of course they are, because the modern one was made by putting a cloth over an actual person, while the middle ages painting is just a freehand painting (because the body is not plausible - arms too long, of different lengths, microcephalic, etc.).
• And so on.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[bill5]

This will end well.

 

[Goatee]

Good to see more points. The differences raised in the article are expected and predictable based on the shroud itself.

• The paint is deeper on the modern shroud - as expected, since the Middle ages shroud had faded due to age, and the new one was faded by washing.
• The blood is on top of the paint instead of vice versa - not a surprise - this suggests that the middle ages painting was made by putting the blood stains on first (OK).
• The dimensions of the person are in different proportions - of course they are, because the modern one was made by putting a cloth over an actual person, while the middle ages painting is just a freehand painting (because the body is not plausible - arms too long, of different lengths, microcephalic, etc.).
• And so on.

In Christ-

Papias

Typical answer from someone clasping at straws!