Shroud of Turin can’t be a fake, researchers say: Scientists unable to replicate cloth’s

NY Daily News ^ | Dec. 22, 2011 | Rheana Murray

[RummyChick]

This is an interesting sysnopsis of the various viewpoints of the Veil. Note that an expert that was consulted in Naples mentions nothing about letters from Raphael stating he was experimenting on Durer’s method.

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/roberto.pdf

It does have various views about the pigments.

Note it says Vigo said the material is cambric. I believe this is not true. She said it was byssus with the use of the term as we know it today.

[RummyChick]

this is suppose to be modeled after Durer. And who is the guy with the wispy mustache? raphael???That painting does look like the guy in the veil.

[RummyChick]

The Vatican Museum states that the man to the right of Marcantonio Raimondi, who others have thought is Durer - is Raphael. And that does look like the Veil man. I assume the description means the viewer’s right and not the man in the picture’s right.

Apparently, the view that it is Raphael is a fairly new view as remarked by one author as being a 20th century tradition. Not sure when this idea first came up. Raphael’s patron, Julius II , is the one being carried.

Julius II would obviously have access to byssus as we use the term today.

[RummyChick]

Now I see what the writer meant about the 20th century view.

Vasari writes that some think it is Guilo Romano in the fresco and others say it is Baldassare Peruzzi, an architect of Saint Peter’s basilica. So who is the mystery man who looks like the man in the Veil.....

[Swordmaker]

As for pigment, again NOT EVERY RESEARCHER AGREES ABOUT THE PIGMENT...including the chemical analysis that I posted that was one on byssal strands.

Look, RummyChick. You obviously have an agenda here. I do not. I have told you the facts. I follow the science. I don't GIVE A DAMN that not every researcher agrees about the pigment. You can SEE THE DAMN PIGMENT on the photomicrograhps! That does not require that ANY RESEARCHER AGREES!

I have no difficulty with the fact that the differences of the images from one side to the other because there ARE differences of the pigments on the cloth and not all of the image is transparent. . . and that which is not, including much of the hair, whites of the eyes, teeth, etc. is PAINTED on both sides of the cloth and simply does not register with the other side, which, frankly, is evidence of it being an artifact of artistic creation, rather than a miraculous creation of Jesus on the way to the Cross. It is irrelevant if it's Byssus (and your red herring about other cloths being called by that name is just exactly that, a red herring, and whether Raphael, would have had access or not to such a costly material — like all artists, he had a wealthy patron to provide his supplies) or cambric pales in the light of the fact that it is a PAINTING! That's what the most recent science says. That's conclusive. It is not a miraculous image. That the Pope made a pilgrimage is also irrelevant.

Your question about God not providing an exact image puts the whole debate into the realm of fantasy!!! That means ANY old thing could be a relic of Jesus, regardless of logic, science, or proof, because God could do anything, make anything, regardless of how absurd it looks because YOU WANT it to be true! In this instance you want God to create a wispy bearded image sans mustache, without wounds, no blood, that has only passing resemblance to the Shroud image, the same passing resemblance it has to every other male face AND create it on the most unlikely of cloths. All logic argues against your thesis... and science and scholarship says your wrong. . . And you want me to prove a negative. I am not going to spend the time to repeat the research I did to find the translation of those letters in that book. Why aren't you finding it? You are reading old commentaries. I had to dig to find it. Trust me. It exists. I'm not even going to find it on FreeRepublic where I posted all of it including links to the original data in 2006.

It's NOT necessary. Since I did that research, the photomicrographic pictures of the Manoppello veil have been taken—photos that anyone can look at—clearly showing pigments, proving it's not miraculous image. Case closed. It's a work of art.

[Oatka]

Now that the season of "good will to all men" is past . . .

Now begone, or I shall be forced to taunt you again!
You don't frighten us . . . you and all your silly English K-nig-hts.

Merry ChristmasHappy New Year, (check one)
() atheist believer at any cost
() Protty ? ? ? no hablo Brit slang
() ignorant skeptic-out-of-habit gullible believer
Cheers! Ta Ta!!

[grey_whiskers]

For the record, "Protty" is short for "Protestant" as there are some Protestants who seem to regard any interest in the Shroud as prima facie evidence of idolatry.

For an unintentionally humorous example of this kind of thinking applied elsewhere, click here.

Happy New Year!