There is both a ventral and dorsal representation of a crucified man on the shroud.
How the scientific process is supposed to work is:
First, a new dating methodology is validated.
Then, as a result of that validation, it wins acceptance as a valid methodology from the scientific community.
Finally, its results are accepted as evidence.
Addendum: until that time it is mere speculation, not evidence: the speculation that if the vanillin âtestâ is valid then it might be evidence.
But there appears to have been no validation with this vanillin not-really-a-test, so no acceptance, so it is not evidence.
In fact I can find no evidence that this not-really-a-test has been applied to anything other than the shroud.
This appears to be just another attempt by a Shroud-authenticity-fanatic to do an end-run around the carbon-dating with another dubious and half-baked âtestâ.
3 Likes
Yes, as seen head-on, as if painted on (or probably done through sunlight exposure ala the âshadow shroudâ technique, with the actual painting being on glass). Not wrapped around a body. The picture simply doesnât make sense as anything but a painting as an almost child-like depiction of a man.
3 Likes
I wouldnât be surprised if there wasnât at least some filtering going on â and that any half-baked dating methodologies they come up with that donât show a sufficiently old age (or couldnât be spun as having done so) donât see the light of day.
Thatâs an advantage of âzero-controls private kitchen experimentsâ â if they donât give you the results you want, you can pretend that they never happened.
2 Likes
Exactly. One of the more amusing arguments made in this discussion was when @Giltil pointed out how similar the image on the âshroudâ is to this not-at-all photo-realistic painting. (Did Jesus have a lazy eye?)
Here is a computer simulation that demonstrates the image on the âshroudâ could not have been produced by being wrapped around a human body, and a simple experiment anyone can do at home to verify the results:
3 Likes
Iâve seen it suggested (I think it might have been on a Youtube video), that the left side and right side of this icon are purposefully different, symbolising Jesusâ two natures â human and divine.
The shadow shroud theory doesnât work. You will have to find another one.
Thatâs somewhat of a rich complaint to raise, considering resurrection neutron blasts are unironically on the table. 
2 Likes
Yes, but not exactly. In fact, the left and right sides of the icon are indeed purposefully different, but one side shows death and suffering, the other the risen Christ, so that we never forget that victory over death had to be achieved through suffering, and that the glory of the resurrection was built on the Passion.
Why not? Your link seems to describe something else entirely than the article I linked. Sorry, you will have to find another excuse.
In fact the link I posted explicitly rejects that the technique is the same:
4. Didnât Nicholas Allen already do this in the mid-nineties?
Wilsonâs answer:
No. Allenâs experiment is quite spiffy, particularly his final images, but it is very different. What we have in common: We are both attempting to create a photo negative by means of sunlight. As far as I can tell, thatâs about it. His theory (as I understand it) involves a medieval working with an early prototype of the camera. A corpse would be painted white and hung in front of the camera (obscura ) for a number of days. The camera itself would be a large box with a quartz lense in the aperture and the film would be the linen, which had first been treated with light sensitive chemicals. The end results are phenomenally realistic three-dimensionally encoded photo negatives on linen. But Allenâs theory has never been widely embraced because his images so far outstrip the image on the Shroud itself, and because of the (apparent) implausibility of a medieval performing the experiment. Personally, I would like to believe medievals capable of what he describes, but if his technique actually had been the one used by forgers it seems that the Shroud would look a lot better than it does. As for my experiment, it is far less sexy. I paint glass and set it over linen. A photo negative is created, and it is three-dimensional. Another difference is the fact that Allenâs images are created by darkening linen with light (by means of photo-chemicals). Mine are created by the natural lightening of linen with sunlight, leaving only the dark behind. In both cases, a form of photo-technology comes into play (because light is used), but with my experiment, the forger does not need to be aware of the fact. Many people who hold to Allenâs position believe that Leonardo Da Vinci was responsible for the forgery, as he was most certainly a man capable of doing such a thing. But he was born in the middle of the fifteenth century.
It is Bill, not me, who advanced the neutron theory. Since at this stage I didnât investigate this theory, I will not comment on it, except to say that it has the merit to exist. As for you, do you have a theory to explain the Shroud ?
It has roughly the same amount of merit as the theory that directional farting produced the image: that is to say only in the imagination of someone deeply confused.
Yes. That video completely and conclusively debunks the shroud as having covered an actual human body. There is no evidence the image of the shroud was produced by wrapping around a body or face. It is an obvious work of art created on a flat surface as a human would create a painting.
It was probably just produced by selective sunlight exposure of a darker cloth that had the likeness of a corpse painted on to it either directly (and then washed off after being left in sunlight for a time) or by having painted glass laid on top of it. Itâs that simple.
2 Likes
Right. So it is on the table, in your opinion, then. You did not bring it up first, nor made an effort to advance it. But you do say it could be meritorious. My point stands.
No. I do not really see anything to explain there. It seems to be an utterly mundane occurrence, just some medieval cloth vaguely depicting a man. Crudely painted on or burnt in, by the looks of it, but its finer nature is for someone else to settle. For me, the fact that it is well over a millennium too young to be Jesusâ burial shroud precludes the possibility that thatâs what it is. What else it is, I do not particularly care. If archeologists eventually find out what it is, and end up finding it has historical significance, thatâs fine by me.
Hereâs a picture I just took of a blanket I had covering an outdoor sofa Iâve had on my balcony for a few years. Notice the dark spots Iâve highlighted, which are the pieces of the blanket that was not directly exposed to sunlight. Itâs actually a sort olive green, but everything else has faded to an almost colorless light grey. All it would take to create the shroud of Turin is to paint the man on the cloth with something that doesnât allow any, or only very little light through, and let the rest bleach out by sunlight. Or by laying something on top of the cloth in the shape of the image, such as painted glass.
What a remarkable piece of technology. Surely people in the middle ages could not have discovered the bleaching/fading effect of sunlight on things left outside in the sun.
3 Likes
You should immediately contact the British museum and negotiate a deal with them for you may become rich.
1 Like
Hilarious. Now I must convince some nutcase filmmakerâs âneutral panelâ (which is his hand-picked shroud expert and someone yet to be named, which HIS company determines) to meet his conditions, all of which have ridiculous wiggle room to avoid payout. I recall the challenge to prove the Earth is round to some flat-eather nutcaseâs satisfaction, and upon looking into a telescope to see the mast of a ship was the first part to appear as it came over the horizon, he simply denied that was what he was seeing and refused to pay up.
Just to pick the most obvious example, what exactly counts as âknown medieval techniques and substances?â. Does a publication somewhere need to exist wherein someone notes that sunlight fades colors on cloth, and if no such publication can be found then such exposure doesnât count as a âknown medievalâ technique?
What about the demand that âthe front and back must show almost the same color intensityâ? What decides the magnitude of âalmost the sameâ?
The image on the linen must be âpermanentâ for at least a year. Under what conditions? Is it going to be exposed to light during that year, handled a lot, washed? Is the image on the shroud of Turin also âpermanentâ under those same conditions?
Will I also be offered the opportunity for letting the cloth age approximately 650 years after first forming the image, to make sure it meets all these silly criteria?
DudeâŚ
2 Likes
Flat earthers exist, books, conferences, and all. Poisoned kool-aid can exist. Existence has zero intrinsic merit.
1 Like
It has a similar merit of wishful thinking. Invoking an unknown, uncategorized effect to posit a potential future observation that no one has reason to suppose will be seen. Itâs like wanting to fit a 5th degree polynomial to data where a straight line is sufficient and no bit of existing theory or data even hints at the existence of or need for mechanisms that call for anything above the first power.