*Most people, and certainly most scientists, have accepted the idea that the shroud was made not long before it was first put on display in 1357. But how it was made we still have no clue. *Says Cecil.
The Shroud of Turin has been reproduced, according to Italian scientists, who claimed their experiment proved that the linen some Christians revere as Jesus’s burial cloth is a medieval fake.
If a man were wrapped in the Shroud as shown about the Shroud Of Turin he would have to be as flat as a paper doll, there is no room for the pate of his head.The top of the front of the head and the back touch like this )( too close for a human that was fatter than a paper doll. The back and front wouldn’t touch if it were wrapped around a man!
This isn’t the first time some have claimed to reproduce the process. I have seen more than one theory on the Bad Science Channel (The History Channel.) I love to see the theories and will be interested in this one too. One used an egg-yolk mixture that was photo-sensitive. Wrapped around a statue and exposed to light it produced an effect similar to the shroud.
Joe Nickell has reproduced parts of the shroud using a daubing action with powdered paint over a bas-relief image. The bas-relief provides a different distortion than a fully-shaped sculpture does, and seems to match the Turin work better. The daubing action gives a “negative” image automatically, something that “believers” think would be impossible before the advent of photography.
While it may not be the way the original was produced, it at least provides a plausible mechanism and is easier and more believable than many other methods.
IIRC the main piece of evidence was carbon dating to the approximate medieval date the shroud first appeared. Skeptics will argue the different flaws in the process (carbon from handling, from the fire that ruined a corner, etc.). I seriously doubt the testers were stupid enough to take their sample from the replacement patch of new cloth sewed on after the fire.
The general proportions, layout and shape of the body suggest it was made over a statue; as mentioned above, it appears to have no room to wrap around the head. Likely they simply made the image from a statue or relief at a nearby church; just sell it far enough away that nobody recognizes the image source.
At the time this shroud appeared there was a very healthy trade in holy relics. One joker once remarked there were enough fragments of the true cross in Europe to build a fairly large fleet of ships. Faking a shroud would be a pretty lucrative endeavour, if they could find the right “mark”.
One thing that always confuses me is that one of the Shroud investigators was a microscope specialist, who claimed the shroud contained pigments. However, I rarely see this mentioned, and often it is claimed there are no signs of pigments. This seems to be an area of contention that is buried. (Joe Nickell is the one who most often brings up the pigment claim.)
md2000 said:
You would think. However, I have seen pretty good evidence that was uncovered by laypeople that the samples used were from a patch job. This was discovered by looking at photos of the Shroud in IIRC infrared and seeing color variances in the cloth, plus the lay of the fibers was different. The people who found this got the attention of one of the senior Shroud researchers (who handles hundreds of claims regarding the Shroud and most are utter garbage, so that was what he expected), and he found it compelling enough to look further. The problem is that the Vatican was so protective of the holy relic, they were very controlling over where samples could be taken, and how large the samples were.
Musicat said:
Seen his method. Joe based his method on the aforementioned claims of pigment on the shroud. Others dismiss his claim on the basis of the claim there is no pigment.
Who is Joe Nickell?
I don’t doubt the Shroud’s a fake but does anybody here have at least a bit of grudging respect for whoever pulled this off? This thing dates to at least 1357 and over 650 years later we’re still not sure exactly how it was done. The fact that the person (or persons) who did this went such extensive detail (like, for example correctly having the nail wounds in the wrists rather than the hands) is especially impressive.
I can also remember reading in a reasonably balanced article that if any of the negative effect were obtained with a pigment, it would have had to have been applied in parts with a brush the width of a fine hair and the cloth “painted” thread by thread. (It has been at least twenty-four years since I read this article for I remember living in another house at the time.)
Funny (if you like vintage Woody Allen), but not accurate. Here’s the real Joe Nickell:
The shroud couldn’t be wrapped around a person or statue, other wise the back of the head and the front of the head wouldn’t touch, the person would have to be flat! They would need more space near the fold and there isn’t! The front and back would be different, plus the image would be backward,The stain would be on the inside of the cloth not just on the outside. If the image soaked through the cloth then the image would also be brighter on the insied than the out! If it were pulled tight less of the image would show. Try it with a doll and some dye and see what you get!
There was a man on TV a couple of years ago who produced such an image by putting on some substance and getting the same type of image by placing it in the Arizonia sun. It still didn’t show why there was no room for the pate of the head. He just got an image.
I doubt that the believers of that time cared if there was a photographic image, just seeing bloody marks on a cloth would sway them, as the cloth of Veronica did. She supposedly wiped Jesus face and his image appeared. How a picture perfect image would show is quite a feat! People see images of the Virgin Mary even today in panckes, toast etc. They want a reason to believe and they use that,even though the pictures in the clouds also look like things. If one is looking for a sign anything will suffice if one wants it bad enough!
I don’t believe the shroud is legitimate; but I also take issue with the logic of the Italian scientists mentioned in the OP who say “We can duplicate it; therefore it is a fake!” Just because it can be duplicated doesn’t by itself discredit the shroud.
But, on the preponderance of evidence (including the carbon dating, spacing and dimension issues, etc), it’s almost certainly a very well-executed fake.
I’m with you on that but apparently monavis would strongly disagree with that assessment. According to his posts, he thinks that even as a fake, the Shroud is an obvious medieval hack-job that could be easily duplicated by anybody of at least average intelligence.
Of course, the topic of how clever a fake the Shroud is belongs in another thread in another forum.
Possibly you misunderstand. Photography wasn’t developed until more recently than either Jesus or the middle ages when the shroud was probably made. But modern viewers have noticed that a reversal image of it looks like a modern film negative, and some jumped to the conclusion that it must have been made by supernatural means therefore, or at least by some genius who anticipated that kind of artistic development.
But if it can be shown that the negative aspect is merely an unintended byproduct of a simple medieval method, that pokes hole in the supernatural claim. Nickell was able to illustrate such a method.
There is an article today on refdesk where an Italian scientist has duplicated the image. I can not understand why a person can see that the shroud at the fold shows it wasn’t wrapped around a human,unless he or she was flat as a paper doll!
I apparently didn’t make myself clear…of course there wasn’t any photography back in the century when the shroud was made, and people just took the word of someone that it was the shroud of Jesus. They want to believe so badly that it gives them hope. Modern humans(some) want it to be authentic so they try to look for signs that it is, like their thinking it was a photographic negative so it must have been supernaturally imposed!
I watched a priest many years ago In the early 40’s over several years (after that on TV) talking about the shroud and each year he seemed to have something added, like coins over the eyes etc. he seemed sincere, but it was my noticing that there was no room for the top of the head that I began to see it couldn’t be wrapped around any human. If so there would be a large space at the fold. The inside of the shroud would have had the stain not just the outside and the inside was never shown, the priest suggested it must have been because Jesus risen body burned the image through it.
That doesn’t really impress me - if I had been charged with making a fake shroud with a faint image back in the 14th century, surely there would have been dozens or hundreds of ways I could have done it. Our not knowing the exact way it was made seems to me like a sign that no one has bothered to ask for details, not any mystery.
Was there ever some idea floating around out there that 14th century technology couldn’t have faked a shroud? If so, then how would anyone explain how the shroud was supposed to have been made inadvertently in the first century? Any indication that it was difficult to make would surely point to the “fraud” explanation instead of being genuine.
monavis said:
How do you know they are showing the outside of the cloth and not the inside?
Skammer said:
If you read the article closely, nowhere are scientists quoted saying that just because they have shown how it could be made they have proven it a fake. There are not extensive enough quotes given to separate that from “We have proven there is a technique that would have provided the same results. Ergo, it could have been faked. Couple that with the other data, like the carbon dating, and we are fairly confident it is a medieval fake.” Which is your position. Don’t blame the scientists for the reporter’s editing.
The age of the Turin cloth had many miracles for sale. Weeping statues and jugs of sacred water from healing springs, pieces of the true cross, bones of saints, etc, were sold then like fake Rembrandt etchings today. Rich people can be gulled and grateful clerics accept their gifts that can be displayed to boost interest in their local endeavors.