Man Floats Shroud of Turin Forgery Theory

Foxnews ^

[frogjerk]

SPOKANE, Washington — Nathan Wilson is an English teacher with no scientific training, but he thinks he knows how Jesus' (search) burial cloth was made and he thinks it's not a physical sign of the resurrection. In other words, in Wilson's estimation, the Shroud of Turin (search) is a fake — produced with some glass, paint and old cloth. And that theory, especially with Easter this weekend, has so-called "Shroudies" a buzz. "A lot of religious people are upset," said Wilson, 26, who teaches at New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho. Wilson is himself an evangelical Christian (search) but said his views on the shroud don't change his faith. "I'm a Bible-believing Christian who believes in the resurrection completely without a doubt," he said. The English instructor believes a medieval forger could have painted the image of a crucified man on a pane of glass, laid it on the linen, then left it outside in the sun to bleach the cloth for several days. As the linen lightened, the painted image of the man remained dark on the cloth, creating the equivalent of a photo negative.

[frogjerk]

"It is not adequate to produce something that looks like the shroud in two or three ways," said Porter, who lives in Bronxville, New York. "One must produce an image that meets all of the criteria."

Exactly...

[Scotswife]

Haven't they already determined that the shroud image is not caused by paint?
I've read the shroud image is "scorched" onto the linen by some unknown process.

[frogjerk]

Haven't they already determined that the shroud image is not caused by paint? I've read the shroud image is "scorched" onto the linen by some unknown process.

You are correct that it has been determined that the image was not caused by paint.

[aruanan]

The English instructor believes a medieval forger could have painted the image of a crucified man on a pane of glass, laid it on the linen, then left it outside in the sun to bleach the cloth for several days.

It has to not raise even more disturbing questions such as where would some medieval artist get a greater than 6 foot long piece of glass that also didn't contain a lot of bubbles and lines that would leave their own sun bleaching marks. The uneven nature of blown glass would also cause variations in the degree of bleaching.

[finnigan2]

I think this guys "theory" has been considered by others in the past and been discounted by subsequent tests. However, the MSM has refloated the idea just at Easter so as to get the Christians upset - which was probably the sole intent of the article from the beginning.

[jscd3]

Wilson said he wants to write a novel about his theory. The forger or perhaps forgers, Wilson theorizes, probably robbed a grave and pulled the aged shroud off a body, then crucified someone to obtain the blood and study the wounds of Jesus.
"Most likely it involved some real wicked people," Wilson said.

Here is the real key part of the story. Wilson has obviously noted how much money Dan Brown made off of the Devinci Hoax. As an english teacher, he figures that he can do even better with the Shroud Fraud.

I note that he is a "Bible believing" Christian - I'm guessing that the "real wicked people" will end up including a Catholic Bishop, or maybe the Knights of Malta...

[OpusatFR]

It's the Triduum. Holy Thursday, today.

What do you expect? Of course the debunkers and Christophobes come out of the woodwork.

I have to check Bravo. They usually broadcast The Omen trilogy on Holy Week.

[freedumb2003]

IIRC, the pigmentation is somehow an actual part of the cloth threads at an atomic level.

[whershey]

"Wilson said he wants to write a novel about his theory."

Sounds like a PR piece to me.

[aroostook war]

I think your theory beats his "theory." Pure speculation, but note his use of the word "probably."

[Puppage]

Can't I tell the media that I am offended by this? Wouldn't they have to cease & desist? After all, they've removed Christmas, Easter Bunny (now known as the Spring Bunny)in many places, and the cross in San Diego. /sarcasm

[doc30]

Yes, the image was not caused by paint, but that's not what the article describes. The article says the image was caused by photo-bleaching from sunlight passing through glass with a painted image. The painting acted as a light filter so the photobleaching would cause a negative image to appear on the cloth. It is a very logical process and something that could be done in the time frame determined from the carbon dating. It is a forgery.

[Reform4Bush]

That theory is preposterous.

Personally, I believe it was produced by 1000 monkeys working for 100 years in some medevial slave monkey forgery mill.

[bigcat00]

Let's see..... An English teacher at a college no one has ever heard of in a small town in rural Idaho has an idea for a book and that's national news? Why, indeed, is this being reported this week, of all times?

[oldcomputerguy]

" in the time frame determined from the carbon dating."

The last thing I heard about the dating was that the middle ages date was now highly suspect. The material tested was determined to be from an area that had been expertly rewoven presumably during that period. If that is the case, it could actually be much older as originally thought.

Did they even have glass at the time of Christ?

[Leatherneck_MT]

Ok one simple question.

If it is a forgery

Where's the original?

Can't have a forgery without an original.

[eno_]

If I read the article correctly, it seems to say the image may have been caused by bleaching the cloth in the sun, except for parts covered by a mask painted on glass.

That would, however, be a damn large pane of glass for the time when the shroud might have been forged, if it was forged.

[eno_]

If it is a forgery Where's the original?

You are correct. The proper would would be "fake," not "forgery."

[eno_]

Float glass is a 20th c. invention. Any glass that old would be uneven and pieced together to cover that much cloth.