Thank you Dan.
My immediate impression is that
- the main author is the same person that wrote the Shroud paper;
- the plot is the same as the one in the shroud paper, but with axes and proper dates, and without the shroud line
- the article on dating the shroud contains none of the equations, uncertainties or caveats in the MDPI paper.
If De Caro was accurately reporting his findings, he’d be saying that his method showed the shroud dated from somewhere between 65AD and 575AD, most probably around 200AD, and so was unlikely to be genuine.
Hmmm…
Moreover, it is interesting to point out that our analysis has shown that, in order for the TS fabric to be about 20 centuries old, it should have necessarily been kept at an average secular temperature of about 22.5 ± 0.5 ◦C and an average relative humidity of 55 ± 5% for 13 centuries preceding the XIV century.
So they can’t actually date anything unless they know how it has been stored - and they don’t know that for the shroud. They’re assuming their desired conclusion and working backwards.
Hi Roy
I agree there is not a solid date yet due to lack of a chain of custody.
The prior show stopper for me was the carbon dating but now this is also in question which brings the other evidence forward for consideration. The matching of blood stains on the Sudaruim with the Shroud is hard to dismiss. The matching of AB blood on both. Also no one has been able to show how you could generate this as a forgery. The Shroud resurfaces as an interesting mystery.
Another falsehood:
It doesn’t have to be a forgery. It could be a very ordinary funerary shroud belonging to some other person of that era.
NOT intended as criticism or question - this just doesn’t seem answerable.
I invite you to see the comments of the video you posted. Quite devastating for the guy’s thesis.
No. And the reason has been advanced by @Faizal_Ali himself, when he rightly noted that the image couldn’t have been created by contact with a body for in this case, the image would have appeared distorted, which is not the case. So, only two possibilities remains: the shroud is either a forgery or is authentic.
I admit, the first 7 comments saying ‘Nuh-uh!’ weren’t convincing, but the 8th baseless rejection of the contents of the video really did it.
I already had, and found nothing more than the usual lame excuses and false allegations that the likes of you find convincing.
There is another possibility here - the Shroud could be art - depicting the face of the deceased. There is not enough detail here to identify that face even if we had a reliable reference. It could be Jesus, or it could be someone who was later mistaken for Jesus. There need not be any fraudulent intent if it is just a mistaken attribution.
Mistaken, fraudulent, or genuine, there is no question that the shroud has become a significant artifact in its own right. Questions of legitimacy do not appear to have caused people to leave their faith, and this suggests that legitimacy isn’t really all that important. Accepting the Shroud is in itself an act of faith, which seems to be it’s true importance.
Yes, but even within those two options, that the image on the “shroud”, whether forged or authentic, is of Jesus is not something that can even possibly be determined. It could be an image of literally any bearded male who was around at the time of its creation. So, really, why does any of this matter?
Has anyone read this book? It seems to add a few more nails to the coffin if its claims are supported:
The Shroud of Turin in History and Myth | Skeptical Inquirer
Hi Gil
What is your understanding of the Sudarium and how it relates to the Shroud. Do you agree the presents of this artifact with the same blood and shared stain patterns is interesting evidence? Do you think this evidence adds credence to the Gospel of John?
This is probably the most significant thing the Sudarium shares in common with the “shroud”:
Just weeks before the congress took place, new samples from the Sudarium were
subject to carbon dating. Five samples were dated from five different cloths – three of
them came up with the expected date, while the cloth from an Egyptian mummy
returned a date of any time in the 19th or 20th centuries. The laboratory immediately
concluded that the cloth (and the mummy) were fakes. The sample from the Sudarium
was dated to around 700 AD. Scientist César Barta spoke about the carbon dating
process, emphasising the fact that if carbon dating is always absolutely accurate, then
we could just as well finish the congress there and then. However, there were several
points to bear in mind – in specialist carbon dating magazines, about half the samples
dated come up with the expected date, around 30% with an “acceptable” date, and the
other 20% is not what one would expect from archaeology. The laboratory used (via the
National Museum in Madrid) said they were surprised by the result and asked if the
cloth was contaminated with any oil based product, as oil is not cleaned by the
laboratory processes used before carbon dating and if oil is present on a sample, the date
produced by carbon dating is in fact the date of contamination. Finally, the history of
the Sudarium is very well established and there are definite references to its presence in
Jerusalem in AD 570 and at the beginning of the fifth century.
More facts for you to deny.
Do you really find the guy’s thesis in the video convincing ?
You have to realize that the shroud depicts not only a human face, but a whole human body. And not only a front view of the body, but a back view also. Moreover, there are real blood traces on the shroud which, importantly, were there before the production of the image. And the blood on the shroud remained red, which indicates that it is that of a man who has undergone a long agony, a terrible stress. These elements, among others, are clearly incompatible with the idea that the shroud is the work of a medieval artist whose intention was simply artistic.
If the shroud was authentic, surely it would have been in contact with a body and so also have a distorted image.
What I found convincing was that he could recreate the image on the Shroud using nothing more than materials and techniques available in the Medieval era, and that he did not have to resort to having a cadaver emit supernatural radioactive beams, or whatever the Shroudies insist happened.
The video was in response to @colewd’s assertion that no human being can reproduce the image on the “shroud”.
The video shows a human being reproducing the image on the “shroud”.
I’m not sure why there are people who think it is impossible for someone to paint a picture on a piece of cloth, but here we are.
I don’t think that is clear at all. I’ve met artists, they’re a weird and intense bunch.