Shroud of Turin conference draws believers to St. Louis


#21

:thumbsup:

Good reasoning in the last two posts. Also, there has been found pollen on it from back in the day. Lots of good analysis at the STURP website. Shroud of Turin Research Project.


#22

Numerous textile experts confirmed then and have confirmed since that the samples were not taken from a repair but from the original cloth. It is indeed a medieval forgery.

Which have been discredited a thousand times over.


#23

“The double image (front and back) of a scourged and crucified man, barely visible on the linen cloth of the Shroud of Turin, has many physical and chemical characteristics that are so particular that the staining, which is identical in all its facets, would be impossible to obtain today in a laboratory,” the report says."

nydailynews.com/news/national/shroud-turin-fake-researchers-scientists-unable-replicate-cloth-christ-like-image-article-1.995661

Some modern-day “researchers” should drop the know-it-all arrogance act and just admit they don’t know everything.

:tiphat:


#24

I’m not exactly sure what you’re getting at, but if you’re saying that a photo of a faint image when viewed in the negative appears to have more depth than the original image, then, if true, that would seem to be nothing more than an optical phenomenon that could just as easily be true of any faint image when viewed in the negative. In addition, just because we have the photographic technology to discern that optical phenomenon now doesn’t necessarily mean that the artist would have had to have had knowledge of that phenomenon when the image was created. Correlation does not imply causation.


#25

One thing the researchers in the linked article need to admit to as that they don’t know what the shroud image looked like in the 14th century. Skeptics today are being asked to reproduce an image that has undergone 600+ years of fading and degradation.


#26

One thing the researchers in the linked article need to admit to as that they don’t know what the shroud image looked like in the 14th century. Researchers today are attempting to reproduce an image that has undergone 600+ years of fading and degradation. It might be far easier to reproduce the image as it appeared in 1390.


#27

After rereading I’m a little unsure as to which researchers are being accused of claiming to know everything.


#28

No that is not what I am saying.

The image on the Shroud normally doesn’t look all that unusual, just some faint smudges for the most part and a weak image of a man. But when you look at the photographic negative of it, the image of the man comes out very strongly, and it is obviously a portrait of a man.

It would be like someone took a picture of the proverbial Jesus face on a piece of toast and the negative when viewed, instead of still looking like random marks and voids, BOOM there was a clearly visible image of a mans face with an obvious 3d quality to it.


#29

No, the Shroud has been kept folded up and out of sight with the exception of very rare viewings. That was why the guy back in the early 1900s took the photo; it was a rare thing to see.

Stored this way and kept from vermin, a cloth can last a very long time and has basically the same look as it had 600 years ago…


#30

The 3D quality was achieved with digital enhancement of the image. It is an optical illusion created by adjusting the contrast.

And it was believed to be a forgery even then. The Bishop of Troyes recorded in 1389 that the Shroud was a forgery and the artist who created it had confessed.


#31

The point is that people in the 14th century didn’t know how to do this, dude, and even if they did, much simpler fraud was enough to convince millions that some things were relics that obviously were not, so why would someone go to this detail to fool anyone for that day and age?

This is obviously real, not fake.

It was not universally believed to be a fake, quite the opposite. But who can blame a few who were privy to who knows how many fake relics that they would not also confuse the genuine article with fakery as well?

And if the forger confessed, what was that artists name? Could someone with that much talent have gone on completely without creating legit art that would have been mind blowing for his day and time? Who was he?


#32

I’m still trying to track down sources for historical descriptions of the shroud from 14th century onwards, but in the meantime, do you have any sources to support the claims that the shroud has always been kept out of sight except on rare occasions and that the shroud has basically looked the same for the past 600 yrs? TIA


#33

Correlation does not imply causation.

:yawn:

I think this comment got thrown in the mix just because it sounded good and has little if any merit whatsoever in reference to what I wrote.


#34

Neither of those quotes was in response to anything you wrote.


#35

Here is a contemporary schedule that comments on the frequency it is displayed in public.

theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2014/03/holy-shroud-to-be-exhibited-april-19.html

In 2010, former Pope Benedict XVI viewed the Shroud of Turin during a special seven-week display that marked the first time the Shroud had been seen by the public since it was restored in 2002…

Before then, it had been on view in 2000 and has been on display only five times in the past 100 years. It was only in 1983 that the Shroud was bequeathed by its owner, ex-King Umberto II of Savoy to “the Pope and his successors” but in those 31 years there have been three Exposition of the Shroud: 1998, 2000 and 2010.

From this source we find the Shroud was exhibited in 1355, 1389, 1418-38 annual exhibitions, 1449, 1453, 1478, 1488, 1494, (1500’s)1502, 1503, 1511 (private exposition), 1518, 1521, 1532 (damaged in fire), 1533-34 repaired, 1535, 1536, 1537, 1561 two showings, 1578 (2 private showings), 1582,
(1600’s) 1604, 1606 (both a public and private showing), 1620, 1633, 1635, 1638 (private showing), 1640, 1642, 1647, 1663 (‘normal May showings’ for some period of time), twice in 1666, 1667, 1694,
(1700’s) 1722, 1737, 1750, 1769, 1775, 1798,
(1800’s) 1804, 1814, 1815, 1822, 1842, 1868, 1898 (first famous photo of the Shroud)

The Shroud is not often shown though the frequency varies from period to period, sometimes once every year but then again sometimes not for decades and when it was exposed it was often shown in the case with only part of it showing.

Even with these exhibitions, the Shroud was not necessarily exposed to direct light, as described here: "draw up an inventory in which the Shroud is described as “enveloped in a red silk drape, and kept in a case covered with crimson velours, decorated with silver-gilt nails, and locked with a golden key.”

The point is it was not normally exposed to broad daylight.


#36

I recall reading Ian Wilson’s book on the Shroud of Turin awhile back and he provides a chronology to the best of his knowledge of the whereabouts of the Shroud back to the time of Christ, in the appendix at the end.

books.google.ca/books?id=3HAN6iTl8ccC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ian+Wilson&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zSNMVOm3C4a3yATbn4GwDA&ved=0CCYQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&q=Ian%20Wilson&f=false

There is also the Sudarium of Oviedo, Spain:
shroud.com/guscin.htm


#37

Thanks for the information. It’s difficult to tell from that description under what conditions it was exposed when it was exposed. Of course, too, direct sunlight is not the only factor that might cause an image on fabric to fade and degrade over time.

I also noticed that while your reference noted the patching done by the Poor Clare nuns as well as changes made to the cloth backing and the various containers, there was no mention to any “invisible” reweaving. While I suspect that that list was probably not intended to be an exhaustive record of the shroud’s care and handling, I’m fairly confident though that if any record existed anywhere documenting such an extraordinary and expensive repair as “invisible” reweaving that shroud supporters would have found it and promoted it by now.

In regards to how the image may have changed throughout the centuries, I found this reference in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia.

As the word sudarium suggested, it was painted to represent the impression made by the sweat of Christ, i.e. probably in a yellowish tint upon unbrilliant red. This yellow stain would turn brown in the course of centuries, the darkening process being aided by the effects of fire and sun. Thus, the lights of the original picture would become the shadow of Paleotto’s reproduction [found [URL=“http://books.google.com/books?id=FjcaAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA166-IA3&lpg=PA166-IA3&dq=Paleotto’s+reproduction&source=bl&ots=fAgGggOEVC&sig=VDSOkPkQd-u3d_M8fnsJj0aJCUg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NnFMVInaB7KHsQSGq4HgDQ&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Paleotto’s%20reproduction&f=false”]here

] of the images on the shroud is printed in two colours, pale yellow and red. As for the good proportions and æsthetic effect, two things may be noted. First, that it is highly probable that the artist used a model to determine the length and position of the limbs, etc.; the representation no doubt was made exactly life size. Secondly, the impressions are only known to us in photographs so reduced, as compared with the original, that the crudenesses, aided by the softening effects of time, entirely disappear.

Lastly, the difficulty must be noticed that while the witnesses of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries speak of the image as being then so vivid that the blood seemed freshly shed, it is now darkened and hardly recognizable without minute attention. On the supposition that this is an authentic relic dating from the year A.D. 30, why should it have retained its brilliance through countless journeys and changes of climate for fifteen centuries, and then in four centuries more have become almost invisible? On the other hand if it be a fabrication of the fifteenth century this is exactly what we should expect.


#38

Thanks for the information. It’s difficult to tell from that description under what conditions it was exposed when it was exposed. Of course, too, direct sunlight is not the only factor that might cause an image on fabric to fade and degrade over time.

I also noticed that while your reference noted the patching done by the Poor Clare nuns as well as changes made to the cloth backing and the various containers, there was no mention to any “invisible” reweaving. While I suspect that that list was probably not intended to be an exhaustive record of the shroud’s care and handling, I’m fairly confident though that if any record existed anywhere documenting such an extraordinary and expensive repair as “invisible” reweaving that shroud supporters would have found it and promoted it by now.

In regards to how the image may have changed throughout the centuries, I found this reference in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia.

As the word sudarium suggested, it was painted to represent the impression made by the sweat of Christ, i.e. probably in a yellowish tint upon unbrilliant red. This yellow stain would turn brown in the course of centuries, the darkening process being aided by the effects of fire and sun. Thus, the lights of the original picture would become the shadow of Paleotto’s reproduction of the images on the shroud is printed in two colours, pale yellow and red. As for the good proportions and æsthetic effect, two things may be noted. First, that it is highly probable that the artist used a model to determine the length and position of the limbs, etc.; the representation no doubt was made exactly life size. Secondly, the impressions are only known to us in photographs so reduced, as compared with the original, that the crudenesses, aided by the softening effects of time, entirely disappear.

Lastly, the difficulty must be noticed that while the witnesses of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries speak of the image as being then so vivid that the blood seemed freshly shed, it is now darkened and hardly recognizable without minute attention. On the supposition that this is an authentic relic dating from the year A.D. 30, why should it have retained its brilliance through countless journeys and changes of climate for fifteen centuries, and then in four centuries more have become almost invisible? On the other hand if it be a fabrication of the fifteenth century this is exactly what we should expect.

Of particular interest in the NACE article is a reference to another article found here. In it the author points out one difficulty with trying to come to any conclusions regarding the so-called negative visual properties relative to the supposed intentions of a hypothesized medieval artist.


#39

Some people see the sun dancing in the sky, so why is it hard to believe that religious fervor might not make the image seem more vivid to an impressionable pilgrim?

And the record provided was not meant to be an exhaustive list, but just to give an idea of how special it was when the Shroud was shown.


#40

The article references “witnesses”, plural, not “an impressionable pilgrim” under the influence of religious fervor. That’s just something you’re reading into it to avoid admitting that the shroud may have faded over time.

And the record provided was not meant to be an exhaustive list, but just to give an idea of how special it was when the Shroud was shown.

I conceded as much. Do you know of any documentation anywhere confirming that “invisible” rewoven patches were added to the shroud?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.