Could 21st Century Technology Produce the Shroud of Turin?
- Thread starter RJM
- Start date
https://www.sci.news/physics/scientists-suggest-turin-shroud-authentic.html
A team of researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA), Italy, has found that the Shroud of Turin is not a fake and the body image was formed by a sort of electromagnetic source of energy.
Italian researchers in the report, published by the ENEA Research Centre of Frascati, describe their findings obtained during five years of experiments and deny the hypothesis that the Shroud of Turin is a medieval forgery.
The researchers, including Paolo Di Lazzaro, Daniele Murra, Enrico Nichelatti, Antonino Santoni and Giuseppe Baldacchini, successfully achieved a superficial coloration similar to that of the body image embedded onto the Shroud of Turin by excimer laser irradiation (spectrum of the emitted light in the ultraviolet and vacuum ultraviolet) of raw linen fabrics.
They obtained at least one fiber colored across the sub-micrometer depth, comparable with thinnest coloration depth observed in the Turin Shroud fibers. However, they found that the total radiation power, required to color a linen surface corresponding to a human body, makes impossible the reproduction of the Turin Shroud image by using a single laser.
The researchers also produced latent coloration that appears after artificial or natural aging of linen following laser irradiations that at first did not generate any visible effect, and identified distinct physical and photochemical processes, which have played a role in the generation of the body image on the Turin Shroud.
“Our research proves that it is very difficult (almost impossible) replicating today all the main physical and chemical characteristics of the body image embedded into the Shroud of Turin,” says Dr. Paolo Di Lazzaro, lead author on the report and senior researcher at the ENEA Research Centre of Frascati, in his interview with Sci-News.com.
“As a consequence, it appears unlikely a forger may have done this image with technologies available in the middle Age or earlier. The probability the Shroud is a fake is really very very low. On the other hand, our results, taken alone, cannot prove the Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. One should add our results to all the other historical, medical, palinilogical, textile evidences accumulated in the last 35 years.”
“It is possible that the body image was formed by a sort of electromagnetic source of energy. Our experiments show that many (not all) the peculiar properties of the body image of the Shroud are produced by a burst of photons in a very narrow range of parameters (pulse duration, intensity, number of shots). In particular, vacuum ultraviolet photons account for the very thin coloration depth, the hue of color and the presence of image in linen parts not in contact with the body. Obviously, it does not mean the image was produced by a laser. Rather, the laser is a powerful tool to test and obtain the light parameters suitable for a shroud-like coloration.”
Answering to the question on when and how the image on the Shroud of Turin was made, Dr. Di Lazzaro comments: “Our research does not address the problem of when, it gives some hints on how. In fact, in our opinion, the most important question is not when the Shroud was made. Independent of its age, middle age or first century, the most important question, the “question of questions” is how it is possible to do an image like the Shroud body image.”
“For sure, none of the hundreds attempts to obtain a shroud-like image by using chemical contact techniques – i.e. adding chemical substances like colors, powders, etc. – has achieved good results. Usually, the chemical approach gives similar macroscopic results, but it fails when analyzing the coloration with a microscope. At the microscopic level, the contact chemical approach does not give Shroud-like results. On the contrary, attempts using various radiations (vacuum ultraviolet photons, electrons from a corona discharge) give a coloration that looks shroud-like even at the microscopic level,” concludes Dr. Di Lazzaro.
https://aleteia.org/2022/04/22/new-technology-suggests-shroud-of-turin-is-2000-years-old/
In 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin found that the relic many faithful believe to be the burial linen of Christ originated about 700 years ago. While the study suggested the shroud was not authentic, it has done little to abate the faith of those thousands who make pilgrimage to Turin to venerate the relic. Now, a new dating technology has placed the fabric within the time of Christ.
The study was conducted by Dr. Liberato de Caro of Italy’s Institute of Crystallography of the National Research Council, in Bari. Dr. de Caro has employed a method known as “Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering,” or WAXS, which measures the natural aging of flax cellulose and converts it to time since manufacture.
The process has several key features that make it more desirable than radiocarbon dating, not least of which that it is completely non-destructive to the samples. Furthermore, the size of the sample required for WAXS is much smaller, requiring just a portion of cloth approximately 0.5mm x 1mm …
https://catholicstrength.com/tag/the-most-advanced-technologies-available-in-the-21st-century-could-not-produce-a-facsimile-of-the-shroud-of-turin-image/
… The National Geographic article further states: “Their analyses found no sign of artificial pigments. ‘The Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist,’ the project’s 1981 report declared. ‘The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin.’ But the report also conceded that no combination of ‘physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances’ could adequately account for the image. The Shroud of Turin, the STURP team concluded, ‘remains now, as it has in the past, a mystery.’”
The main findings of the STURP scientific study of the Shroud of Turin are summarized nicely by physicist Paolo Di Lazzaro:
“The Shroud is not a painting, no pigment, any directionality, not a scorch. The image encodes cloth to body distance, and it is present in both contact and non contact areas. The image is superficial, no more than 0.6 microns thick (work by others has shown 0.2 microns ). Invisible halos surround blood. Blood went on before image (no image beneath blood). The blood stains contain hemoglobin and serum albumin. Calcium and strontium and iron are uniformly present on the Shroud in small quantities (Paolo Di Lazzaro, ATSI 2014 Bari).”
Here is the official summary of STURP’s conclusions courtesy of a link provided by shroud.com: Summary of STURP’s Conclusions …
www.theguardian.com
Expert on revered relic calls on British Museum to back up the results of its disputed carbon dating tests
... But one man – David Rolfe, a film-maker whose documentary The Silent Witness had brought the shroud into the public eye in modern times, and who had converted to Christianity as a result of his research – wasn’t prepared to give up on it. He was convinced the carbon dating, carried out in 1988 under the direction of the British Museum and Oxford University, had been flawed. And now he claims he has the evidence to prove it. This week sees the release of a new film, Who Can He Be?, in which Rolfe argues that, far from the shroud being a definite dud, new discoveries in the past few years have again opened the question of its authenticity.
So convinced is Rolfe that he’s issuing a challenge worth $1m to the British Museum. “If … they believe the shroud is a medieval forgery, I call on them to repeat the exercise, and create something similar today,” he says. “Because from all the evidence I’ve seen, if this is a forgery it’s the most ingenious forgery in history – and of course it dates back almost 2,000 years, to a time of far less sophisticated forgery techniques.
“They said it was knocked up by a medieval conman, and I say: well, if he could do it, you must be able to do it as well. And if you can, there’s a $1m donation for your funds.”
A team of researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA), Italy, has found that the Shroud of Turin is not a fake and the body image was formed by a sort of electromagnetic source of energy.
Italian researchers in the report, published by the ENEA Research Centre of Frascati, describe their findings obtained during five years of experiments and deny the hypothesis that the Shroud of Turin is a medieval forgery.
The researchers, including Paolo Di Lazzaro, Daniele Murra, Enrico Nichelatti, Antonino Santoni and Giuseppe Baldacchini, successfully achieved a superficial coloration similar to that of the body image embedded onto the Shroud of Turin by excimer laser irradiation (spectrum of the emitted light in the ultraviolet and vacuum ultraviolet) of raw linen fabrics.
They obtained at least one fiber colored across the sub-micrometer depth, comparable with thinnest coloration depth observed in the Turin Shroud fibers. However, they found that the total radiation power, required to color a linen surface corresponding to a human body, makes impossible the reproduction of the Turin Shroud image by using a single laser.
The researchers also produced latent coloration that appears after artificial or natural aging of linen following laser irradiations that at first did not generate any visible effect, and identified distinct physical and photochemical processes, which have played a role in the generation of the body image on the Turin Shroud.
“Our research proves that it is very difficult (almost impossible) replicating today all the main physical and chemical characteristics of the body image embedded into the Shroud of Turin,” says Dr. Paolo Di Lazzaro, lead author on the report and senior researcher at the ENEA Research Centre of Frascati, in his interview with Sci-News.com.
“As a consequence, it appears unlikely a forger may have done this image with technologies available in the middle Age or earlier. The probability the Shroud is a fake is really very very low. On the other hand, our results, taken alone, cannot prove the Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. One should add our results to all the other historical, medical, palinilogical, textile evidences accumulated in the last 35 years.”
“It is possible that the body image was formed by a sort of electromagnetic source of energy. Our experiments show that many (not all) the peculiar properties of the body image of the Shroud are produced by a burst of photons in a very narrow range of parameters (pulse duration, intensity, number of shots). In particular, vacuum ultraviolet photons account for the very thin coloration depth, the hue of color and the presence of image in linen parts not in contact with the body. Obviously, it does not mean the image was produced by a laser. Rather, the laser is a powerful tool to test and obtain the light parameters suitable for a shroud-like coloration.”
Answering to the question on when and how the image on the Shroud of Turin was made, Dr. Di Lazzaro comments: “Our research does not address the problem of when, it gives some hints on how. In fact, in our opinion, the most important question is not when the Shroud was made. Independent of its age, middle age or first century, the most important question, the “question of questions” is how it is possible to do an image like the Shroud body image.”
“For sure, none of the hundreds attempts to obtain a shroud-like image by using chemical contact techniques – i.e. adding chemical substances like colors, powders, etc. – has achieved good results. Usually, the chemical approach gives similar macroscopic results, but it fails when analyzing the coloration with a microscope. At the microscopic level, the contact chemical approach does not give Shroud-like results. On the contrary, attempts using various radiations (vacuum ultraviolet photons, electrons from a corona discharge) give a coloration that looks shroud-like even at the microscopic level,” concludes Dr. Di Lazzaro.
https://aleteia.org/2022/04/22/new-technology-suggests-shroud-of-turin-is-2000-years-old/
In 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin found that the relic many faithful believe to be the burial linen of Christ originated about 700 years ago. While the study suggested the shroud was not authentic, it has done little to abate the faith of those thousands who make pilgrimage to Turin to venerate the relic. Now, a new dating technology has placed the fabric within the time of Christ.
The study was conducted by Dr. Liberato de Caro of Italy’s Institute of Crystallography of the National Research Council, in Bari. Dr. de Caro has employed a method known as “Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering,” or WAXS, which measures the natural aging of flax cellulose and converts it to time since manufacture.
The process has several key features that make it more desirable than radiocarbon dating, not least of which that it is completely non-destructive to the samples. Furthermore, the size of the sample required for WAXS is much smaller, requiring just a portion of cloth approximately 0.5mm x 1mm …
https://catholicstrength.com/tag/the-most-advanced-technologies-available-in-the-21st-century-could-not-produce-a-facsimile-of-the-shroud-of-turin-image/
… The National Geographic article further states: “Their analyses found no sign of artificial pigments. ‘The Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist,’ the project’s 1981 report declared. ‘The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin.’ But the report also conceded that no combination of ‘physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances’ could adequately account for the image. The Shroud of Turin, the STURP team concluded, ‘remains now, as it has in the past, a mystery.’”
The main findings of the STURP scientific study of the Shroud of Turin are summarized nicely by physicist Paolo Di Lazzaro:
“The Shroud is not a painting, no pigment, any directionality, not a scorch. The image encodes cloth to body distance, and it is present in both contact and non contact areas. The image is superficial, no more than 0.6 microns thick (work by others has shown 0.2 microns ). Invisible halos surround blood. Blood went on before image (no image beneath blood). The blood stains contain hemoglobin and serum albumin. Calcium and strontium and iron are uniformly present on the Shroud in small quantities (Paolo Di Lazzaro, ATSI 2014 Bari).”
Here is the official summary of STURP’s conclusions courtesy of a link provided by shroud.com: Summary of STURP’s Conclusions …
The $1m challenge: ‘If the Turin Shroud is a forgery, show how it was done’
Expert on revered relic calls on British Museum to back up the results of its disputed carbon dating tests
www.theguardian.com
... But one man – David Rolfe, a film-maker whose documentary The Silent Witness had brought the shroud into the public eye in modern times, and who had converted to Christianity as a result of his research – wasn’t prepared to give up on it. He was convinced the carbon dating, carried out in 1988 under the direction of the British Museum and Oxford University, had been flawed. And now he claims he has the evidence to prove it. This week sees the release of a new film, Who Can He Be?, in which Rolfe argues that, far from the shroud being a definite dud, new discoveries in the past few years have again opened the question of its authenticity.
So convinced is Rolfe that he’s issuing a challenge worth $1m to the British Museum. “If … they believe the shroud is a medieval forgery, I call on them to repeat the exercise, and create something similar today,” he says. “Because from all the evidence I’ve seen, if this is a forgery it’s the most ingenious forgery in history – and of course it dates back almost 2,000 years, to a time of far less sophisticated forgery techniques.
“They said it was knocked up by a medieval conman, and I say: well, if he could do it, you must be able to do it as well. And if you can, there’s a $1m donation for your funds.”
Last edited:
Regarding new carbon dating, I believe that carbon testing cannot be repeated as the shroud has since been treated with some preservative or fire resistant substance, or stored in some way that would completely skew new carbon dating. I will Google around later.
Can't verify
Here:
catholicherald.co.uk
Is it time for new tests on the Turin Shroud?
.. The researchers – T Casabianca, E Marinelli, G Pernagallo and B Torrisi – call for fresh radiocarbon tests.
They argue that the variability in results from the subsamples indicates that the test samples cannot be considered representative of the Shroud as a whole. They conclude that new, rigorously planned testing is needed to establish a more reliable date.
The researchers’ call for fresh radiocarbon analysis has been echoed by other experts. Professor Walter Kutschera, former head of the Institute of Isotope Research and Nuclear Physics at the University of Vienna, said that recent advances make it easier “to extract genuine carbon material from a variety of different materials”. He believes “it is now possible to perform 14C measurements with a few micrograms.” This means researchers could “take samples from several places across the Shroud of Turin”, ensuring “a reasonable chance to obtain a good average age of the cloth”.
Can't verify
Here:
Is it time for new tests on the Turin Shroud? - Catholic Herald
Scientists are calling for fresh tests on the Turin Shroud after a paper challenged a previous finding that it dated from the Middle Ages. The paper, which queried the methodology of a 1988 study, has led researchers and scientific commentators to say it is “high time” for a new round of tests...
catholicherald.co.uk
Is it time for new tests on the Turin Shroud?
.. The researchers – T Casabianca, E Marinelli, G Pernagallo and B Torrisi – call for fresh radiocarbon tests.
They argue that the variability in results from the subsamples indicates that the test samples cannot be considered representative of the Shroud as a whole. They conclude that new, rigorously planned testing is needed to establish a more reliable date.
The researchers’ call for fresh radiocarbon analysis has been echoed by other experts. Professor Walter Kutschera, former head of the Institute of Isotope Research and Nuclear Physics at the University of Vienna, said that recent advances make it easier “to extract genuine carbon material from a variety of different materials”. He believes “it is now possible to perform 14C measurements with a few micrograms.” This means researchers could “take samples from several places across the Shroud of Turin”, ensuring “a reasonable chance to obtain a good average age of the cloth”.
Last edited:
It comes down to the fact that most other factors indicate the shroud to be authentic, except for the carbon dating in 1988 of a single thread taken from one corner of the cloth. Not that the dating (by three independent laboratories) is faulty, but that the sample is not representative. I'm quite astounded because I have always just accepted the carbon dating as solid evidence of a medieval forgery. But that now seems very unconvincing. My mind has now completely changed
Here is a one hour long BBC documentary that sums it all up quite neatly, imo:
Here is a one hour long BBC documentary that sums it all up quite neatly, imo:
moralorel
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 602
- Reaction score
- 541
- Points
- 88
No it can not.
But that doesn't mean that the Shroud of Turin is from the Messiah. It is unlikely and irrelevant. Many people WANT to believe, but that doesn't make it any more authentic. Here is why it is NOT the shroud of Jesus.
1. No mention of this shroud comes up until the 1300's.
2. The Catholic Church won't even affirm it's authenticity.
3. Multiple scientists with different samples all came to the same conclusion, that it was carbon-dated to the 1300's. This wasn't a group of scientists trying to disprove its authenticity. They were trying to PROVE its authenticity.
4. In 2020 the scientific data was reevaluated. It was found that the shroud could be slightly earlier.... the 1200's.
5. The Bible claims that Jesus had a separate cloth for his face. It also claims that he was wrapped in strips. Not one big shroud.
6. Jewish custom has been for the face to have a separate cloth, thus verifying the biblical account.
7. The fabric doesn't match the style of Jesus's time. Not one Jewish burial of Jesus's time ever had a similar weave to the fabric of the Shroud of Turin. Not one.
There's more, but there's no point. The shroud isn't important. When Jesus returns, He'll probably tell His followers to burn the thing... real or not. It isn't important to His mission at all.
But that doesn't mean that the Shroud of Turin is from the Messiah. It is unlikely and irrelevant. Many people WANT to believe, but that doesn't make it any more authentic. Here is why it is NOT the shroud of Jesus.
1. No mention of this shroud comes up until the 1300's.
2. The Catholic Church won't even affirm it's authenticity.
3. Multiple scientists with different samples all came to the same conclusion, that it was carbon-dated to the 1300's. This wasn't a group of scientists trying to disprove its authenticity. They were trying to PROVE its authenticity.
4. In 2020 the scientific data was reevaluated. It was found that the shroud could be slightly earlier.... the 1200's.
5. The Bible claims that Jesus had a separate cloth for his face. It also claims that he was wrapped in strips. Not one big shroud.
6. Jewish custom has been for the face to have a separate cloth, thus verifying the biblical account.
7. The fabric doesn't match the style of Jesus's time. Not one Jewish burial of Jesus's time ever had a similar weave to the fabric of the Shroud of Turin. Not one.
There's more, but there's no point. The shroud isn't important. When Jesus returns, He'll probably tell His followers to burn the thing... real or not. It isn't important to His mission at all.
This just tells me you have not reviewed any of the material with recent findings that I have presented.
Please at least watch the BBC Documentary before commenting further:
Wrong
Correct. Based on the 1988 carbon dating alone. The dating was based on one thread* taken from one corner. The thread was divided into three parts and sent to three separate labs. The dating is probably correct, but the sample is not representative
Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin - Wikipedia
As above
Both have been found. The face cloth dating to before 500 AD with definite provenance, and exactly matching the marks on the shroud itself
Wrong. It does match. It is an expensive herringbone pattern weave, as would have been provided by Joseph of Arimathea
Says who?
In your own opinion, of course?
*Actually a sample
" ... a piece twice as big as the one required by the protocol was cut from the Shroud; it measured 81 mm × 21 mm (3.19 in × 0.83 in). An outer strip showing coloured filaments of uncertain origin was discarded.[37] The remaining sample, measuring 81 mm × 16 mm (3.19 in × 0.63 in) and weighing 300 mg, was first divided in two equal parts, one of which was preserved in a sealed container, in the custody of the Vatican, in case of future need. The other half was cut into three segments, and packaged for the labs in a separate room by Tite and the archbishop."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin
Last edited:
moralorel
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 602
- Reaction score
- 541
- Points
- 88
WrongWrong
Correct. Based on the 1988 carbon dating alone. The dating was based on one thread taken from one corner. The thread was divided into three parts and sent to three separate labs. The dating is probably correct, but the sample is not representative
Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
As above
Both have been found. The face cloth dating to before 500 AD with definite provenance, and exactly matching the marks on the shroud itself
Wrong. It does match. It is an expensive herringbone pattern weave, as would have been provided by Joseph of Arimathea
Says who?
In your own opinion, of course?
I actually studied the Shroud of Turin as part of my literature thesis. I had to address the shroud in my writing about what Jesus would have looked like. I interviewed professors and combed through plenty of books about the shroud. It's not from Jesus. Sorry, but it's not His. Maybe I'll watch the documentary when I have time, but I have rolled my eyes at so many "documentaries". For example, I have been studying the Thutmose family for quite awhile now. Yet I have seen so many documentaries about that family, especially about Hatshepsut, that have been absolutely pathetic. A film maker takes an opinion, takes some "facts" and uses them to support their opinion, and ignores any facts to the contrary. I just watched a documentary last night where the documentary neatly referred to "amateur scientists" as experts. I'm an amateur historian, so I guess I can be cited for documentaries.
Jesus cared about spiritual matters. So yes, He would NOT care about that shroud. Physical people care about spears of destiny, shrouds of turin, holy grails, etc. Jesus does not.
When did you write your thesis? The documentary is an overview of recent findings. The documentary is not the only material I have presented. It is a summing-up that may encourage deeper investigation. You insist "It's not from Jesus" without adding IMO and without even reviewing the recent findings I have presented?Wrong
I actually studied the Shroud of Turin as part of my literature thesis. I had to address the shroud in my writing about what Jesus would have looked like. I interviewed professors and combed through plenty of books about the shroud. It's not from Jesus. Sorry, but it's not His. Maybe I'll watch the documentary when I have time, but I have rolled my eyes at so many "documentaries". For example, I have been studying the Thutmose family for quite awhile now. Yet I have seen so many documentaries about that family, especially about Hatshepsut, that have been absolutely pathetic. A film maker takes an opinion, takes some "facts" and uses them to support their opinion, and ignores any facts to the contrary. I just watched a documentary last night where the documentary neatly referred to "amateur scientists" as experts. I'm an amateur historian, so I guess I can be cited for documentaries.
Jesus cared about spiritual matters. So yes, He would NOT care about that shroud. Physical people care about spears of destiny, shrouds of turin, holy grails, etc. Jesus does not.
Last edited:
Do you have any theory about how the image was created by a medieval forger? Also about the Constantinople shroud that disappeared during the fourth crusade? Or the pollen samples? Or recent age tests by x-ray scattering, etc?
Last edited:
moralorel
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 602
- Reaction score
- 541
- Points
- 88
Please tell me where I called it a forgery? I just said it isn't from Jesus's time. While there is evidence of it being a forgery, I'm not sold on that idea.
Every single Jewish burial from the time of Jesus has a shroud that goes up the shoulders. It stops there. So if the shroud were headless, then it would make more sense. Recent tests confirmed what I thought (but didn't write). The shroud has DNA from all around the world and the material was probably from India. Pollen samples show that it has traveled around many parts of the world (which it has). I wrote my thesis 20 years ago. Not much has changed since then. That shroud still looks soooooo different from anything found during the time of Jesus. But it sure does look like something from the 1200s and 1300s.
Ok. But how was it done? It cant be produced even today
A face covering was found, with blood marks that match, used to cover the face while the body was taken to the tomb. Thereafter Jesus was laid in the tomb in a hurry before the sabbath began. After that, the body was gone.
Sudarium of Oviedo - Wikipedia
Pollen samples show that it originated in Jerusalem, then moved to Constantinople, before appearing in France with the family of a French crusader who looted relics. Do you have reference to pollen from other parts of the world
From where, exactly?
Do you have a reference that the linen fabric mixed with a little cotton came from India?
I wish you would review the actual material presented in the thread, and then come back on it? At least the BBC overview
(edited)
Last edited:
moralorel
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 602
- Reaction score
- 541
- Points
- 88
I find it ironic that you used Wikipedia as a source. A lot of my claims are mentioned there as well I see.Ok. But how was it done? It cant be produced even today
A face covering was found. Jesus was laid in the tomb in a hurry, before even embalming.
Sudarium of Oviedo - Wikipedia
Pollen samples show that it originated in Jerusalem, then moved to Constantinople, before appearing in France with the family of a French crusader who looted relics. Do you have reference to pollen from other parts of the world
From where, exactly?
Do you have a reference that the linen fabric mixed with a little cotton came from India?
I wish you would review the actual material presented in the thread, and then come back on it? At least the BBC overview
I'm headed to bed. But I think you are confused about what I'm NOT saying. I'm NOT saying it is a forgery. So asking me how it was made it kind of irrelevant. I have assumed it covered a body during the medieval period.
I also never said that face coverings weren't found. I am saying that the shroud of Turin was placed on a body including the head. Jesus's shroud would not have had a head. Let me repeat that. Jesus's shroud would have been headless.
I'm not using wikipedia as a source. It is just a quick reference to demonstrate known facts that can easily be verified.
And me to work
I'm not confused. We've agreed you're not saying it's a forgery.
The question is how it was created, by anyone, at any time?
Blood marks on the Sudarium of Oviedo exactly match marks on the shroud, and the provenance of the sudarium dates it to before 500AD with certainty
Yes
No doubt His final shroud would have been, if there had been time to properly wrap the body -- but that wasn't done. The body was quickly laid in the tomb before the sabbath began, and when the women came back to embalm and wrap the body, the stone was rolled away and the body was gone. The temporary face covering used to transport the body was also left in the tomb
EDIT: the shroud was tied around the body with a strip cut from the side of the shroud, that was later re-attached by sewing to the side of the shroud.
Last edited:
Is there DNA?
Is the only significance historical?
Is there any religious significance if it is real?
Is the only significance historical?
Is there any religious significance if it is real?
The intensity of radiation needed to produce the image cannot be created even today. I only request people to review the material presented above -- at least to watch the BBC overview to realize the implications
I have always assumed the shroud to be a medieval forgery, until reviewing the full story. So it's not a question of wanting to believe, or disbelieve. It's why the thread is in the science forum