https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/tech...-of-turin-is-fake/ar-AAAfq9m?ocid=mailsignout
As a Roman Catholic, myself, I've always been intrigued by the Shroud of Turin. The gist of this article is that the blood flows imprinted on the shroud appear to be inconsistent with what actual blood flows would've have been like, in Christ's circumstance (tortured to death by flogging & crucifixion).
It's been very apparent for a lot of years -- and has not been a secret -- that the shroud is extremely likely to be representative of primitive photographic experiments done in medieval times. This seems very consistent with evidence of other such experiments. Pieces of the shroud have been carbon dated to the medieval period, long ago, already. The fact that these scientists are going on about forensic tests makes no sense to me, there's no point in even conducting such tests. The shroud is a photograph. Probably of a sculpture.
Certain paintings from medieval times suggest that they were aided, or in some way influenced by, early attempts at photography. The technology was such that only a negative was possible. There was nothing you could do to get a positive photo, the process didn't allow for that. In fact, a major solvent used in the development of these was, believe it or not, urine. But there was no real market out there for primitive, photographic negatives. It's not the kind of thing someone can hang over their sofa and have it be clear who, or even what it is. And the shroud is big enough where detail can just about be clearly seen, anyway. Anything smaller would lose a lot of information.
But it's so iconic, the shroud that were it actually proven genuine, it couldn't be afforded more affection. It's an intriguing and Historically important relic and I'm glad it exists. I just wish that keeping the controversy alive weren't so important to the thing. Its reality is quite remarkable enough ...
As a Roman Catholic, myself, I've always been intrigued by the Shroud of Turin. The gist of this article is that the blood flows imprinted on the shroud appear to be inconsistent with what actual blood flows would've have been like, in Christ's circumstance (tortured to death by flogging & crucifixion).
It's been very apparent for a lot of years -- and has not been a secret -- that the shroud is extremely likely to be representative of primitive photographic experiments done in medieval times. This seems very consistent with evidence of other such experiments. Pieces of the shroud have been carbon dated to the medieval period, long ago, already. The fact that these scientists are going on about forensic tests makes no sense to me, there's no point in even conducting such tests. The shroud is a photograph. Probably of a sculpture.
Certain paintings from medieval times suggest that they were aided, or in some way influenced by, early attempts at photography. The technology was such that only a negative was possible. There was nothing you could do to get a positive photo, the process didn't allow for that. In fact, a major solvent used in the development of these was, believe it or not, urine. But there was no real market out there for primitive, photographic negatives. It's not the kind of thing someone can hang over their sofa and have it be clear who, or even what it is. And the shroud is big enough where detail can just about be clearly seen, anyway. Anything smaller would lose a lot of information.
But it's so iconic, the shroud that were it actually proven genuine, it couldn't be afforded more affection. It's an intriguing and Historically important relic and I'm glad it exists. I just wish that keeping the controversy alive weren't so important to the thing. Its reality is quite remarkable enough ...
