The hypothesis of a medieval fraud is impossible for the shroud displays many details that were unknown in the Middle Ages. In fact, the shroud is an object that is absolutely inconceivable in the Middle Ages.
None of that is an objective measure of age. What you have is opinion.
5 Likes
Cool story, bro.
3 Likes
I donât think so. For instance, if the Medieval painting known as the âShroud of Turinâ included, say, detailed diagrams of the structure of a mitochondrion, that would objectively be something that could not have been known in the Middle Ages. The âshroudâ contains nothing like that, so @Giltilâs claim is objectively wrong. This is not a matter of opinion.
2 Likes
I can never figure out how people can get themselves to write something like this. Clearly it canât be impossible. The strongest thing you could say from your perspective as a shroud-believer, is that it the fraud hypothesis may be very implausible, or very unlikely, but that doesnât make it impossible.
Inconceivable? You use this word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Also, thatâs not a fact, thatâs a claim. Please demonstrate that the shroud would be âabsolutely inconceivable in the Middle Agesâ. How could you even hope to support such a claim? Youâre purporting to know at very high level of confidence, what people in the middle ages would be capable of imagining.
2 Likes
The image on the shroud is a negative. This sole point invalidate the thesis of a medieval fraud for the notion of « negative » was totally unknown in the Middle Ages.
No, itâs not a negative. Where ever did you get that silly idea?
Are you confusing the widely circulated 1898 negative image of the shroud taken by an Italian photographer with the shroud itself?
2 Likes
Sorry but you are wrong. The widely circulated picture of the Shroud taken by Secondo Pia in 1898 was, unexpectedly, a positive image when it should have been a negative. It follows that the image on the Shroud is a negative.
LOL! Linking to a woo woo website with SoT wishful thinking âfactsâ doesnât change the reality the image on the shroud is not a negative.
3 Likes
That could have been discovered simply by accident. Somebody paints something on a piece of glass, leaves it on a piece of cloth exposed to sunlight for a time. Later comes and picks up the painted glass, sees that the parts of cloth not having been covered by the areas of glass with paint on, have faded, leaving a negative imprint of the painted image on the cloth. The whole thing is so simple itâs trivial.
http://shadowshroud.com/
1 Like
By the way, what exactly are you saying is real, or authentic, about the Shroud of Turin?
1 Like
This is amazing! I canât believe you donât understand that the image on the shroud behave like a photographic negative. Why are you denying the obvious?
Weâve been here before.
1 Like
Your scenario known as the shadow theory doesnât explain many characteristics of the Shroud. IOW, it is wrong.
Seems to me that article makes numerous strange and contradictory statements.
For example, it says:
âThe image on the Turin Shroud, the very thin layer of caramel-like substance, 180-600 nanometers thick, is thinner than most bacteria . The layer can be seen by phase-contrast microscopy. And with a scanning electron microscope the fine crystalline structure of the carbohydrate layer can be discerned. The image resists normal bleaching by chemicals or by sunlight. If the image were formed by a bleaching process, particularly an absence of bleaching as Wilsonâs proposes, it would bleach out.â
The image âresistsâ ânormal bleachingâ by chemicals and sunlight? The statement is vague. Resists? What does that mean exactly? It bleaches at a reduced rate?(Compared to what?) Not at all? Is unaltered when exposed to chemicals? What chemicals exactly? What is ânormalâ bleaching by chemicals and sunlight? For how long? At what angle, intensity, geographical latitude?
Then it goes on to say:
âThe image on the Shroud of Turin can be scraped from the cloth, pulled away by adhesive and reduced with a diimide reagent, leaving colorless, undamaged linen. That cannot be the case with Wilsonâs image.â
So the image âresistsâ bleaching by sunlight or chemicals, but can be⊠âreducedâ with a diimide reagent. Thatâs a contradiction right there.
Also if it can be scraped or pulled off with an adhesive, that means itâs some sort of substance that has been added to the fabric that can be mechanically removed.
But thatâs not incompatible with the shadowshroud scenario. One idea is there is painted fabric, as in it has color added to itâs surface, and then painted glass is placed on top. The sun will then bleach out the color in the cloth where it isnât covered by painted glass, leaving only the color parts left where it was covered by painted glass. Simple, really.
Wilson has also responded to that article btw: http://shadowshroud.com/faq.htm#faq7
But we can put all that aside. If I didnât know how the image on the shroud was formed, then I didnât know, and that would be my answer. Iâm curious what you think happened and what you think it shows. How do you think the image on the shroud formed?
1 Like
The only thing obvious is youâll swallow any nonsense in support of your preconceived beliefs. The shroud is supposedly a burial cloth and the markings on it supposedly came from contact with the body. That doesnât make it a photographic negative any more than your hand print on a wall is a photographic negative of your hand. Sheesh.
3 Likes
That the image on the Shroud behaves as a photographic negative, in the sense that what should be dark is light and vice versa, is an undisputed fact both by proponents and opponents of the authenticity thesis.
Also, to make the record straight, it is not the case that the image on the Shroud came from contact with the body for in that case, the face of the man of the shroud would be distorted, which is not the case.
What I am saying is that the Shroud of Turin is authentic in the sense that it is the linen that covered Christ in the tomb.
How do you know that?
2 Likes
Because the enormous amount of knowledge accumulated on the Shroud, whether archaeological, historical or scientific, is perfectly consistent with the thesis of authenticity and at the same time makes the thesis of a medieval fraud preposterous.
Letâs take another example beside the negative aspect of the image. In 1978, using reflectance spectrometry, the STURP scientists detected some trace of dirt on the nose, knee and heel of the man of the shroud that was subsequently classified as a form of travertine aragonite, a rare limestone identical to that found in Jerusalem. This fact, which fits perfectly well with the account of the Gospels which report that Christ fell several times during his Passion, is totally incomprehensible under the forger thesis. Indeed, why on earth would a medieval forger have placed these trace of dirt specifically at these positions when they would have been absolutely undetectable at the time?