Now all these idiots have to do is create it......still waiting.
It was Bob Morton, a petroleum company chemist from Oklahoma, who gave Vikan the most convincing answer. Morton and his daughter, Rebecca, figured out that a combination of tannic acid applied to a human body and iron sulfate applied to linen could create a kind of photographic impression like the man of the shroud.
He reviews a book about the Shroud and compares the controversy with the Russia Hoax - deeming both to be settled science.
In short, I believe what I believe and nothing written or spoken will change my beliefs.
Another broken writer from the ash heaps of history, the local newspaper.
“In Trump World, facts do not matter.”
Hey, Baltimore Sun! Project much!
No need to read past the projection.
Given the right paper and some chemicals, I can reproduce the Declaration of Independence. Therefore Declaration of Independence is fake.
Unless they can reproduce all the characteristics of the Shroud their theory is just a theory.
A better book might be the first half of
The Sign, by art historian Thomas de Wesselow where he disassembled all the doubting theories; the second half is his own strange theory that what the disciples and others saw after the resurrection was just the Shroud. Doesn’t explain Jesus walking to Emmaus.
https://www.amazon.com/Sign-Shroud-Turin-Secret-Resurrection/dp/0525953655/ref=sr_1_1
The Shroud sure has curious effects on some people.
#1 the Russian Collusion was done by the Democrats, FBI, and the CIA.
#2 the Shroud is probably real. So said the scientists that worked on it who weren't mysteriously given a million dollars.
Chemist Robert Morton explained at a Good Friday seminar at the Walters Art Museum's Graham Auditorium how a realistic shroud could be made using common scribe's chemicals available throughout human history.
Morton prepared linen cloth with an iron solution, and then brought the coloration out with tannic acids — revealing images of his wife, and his daughter?s boyfriend similar to the faint negative image on the shroud.
“The more pressure you put on it, the tannic acid moves around on the cloth so you get more reaction,” Morton said.
The article is shrouded in confusion.
Deconstructing the “Debunking” of the Shroud
By real art historians and classicists that aren't blinded by Vikan's hated of religion. Daniel Scavone, Professor of History, University of Southern Indiana, USA
Karlheinz Dietz, Professor of History, University of Würzburg, Germany
John Markwardt, Historian, USA
Mario Latendresse, Physics, University of Montreal, Canada
Albert Dreisbach, Historian, USA
Mark Guscin, Classics Instructor, Spain
Joseph Marino, Librarian, The Ohio State University
Emanuela Marinelli, Classicist, Rome, Italy
Gino Zaninotto, Classicist, Rome, Italy
As we'd say when I worked in NYC, oy vey...
Anything I’ve read about the shroud is that it appears to be an image of a crucified man that dates from approximately the time of Jesus. No shred of evidence that it is Jesus.
If there were any hint in church writings and/or scripture that Jesus’ burial cloth would be preserved / important, I might believe it. Same with the cross, or Noah’s ark, etc. - no physical reason why such things would survive to our day, and no spiritual reason for it. We believe because of the changing power of the Holy Spirit, in lieu of physical evidence.
It’s been said you could build a large house out of all the little wood chips and splinters of the cross in cathedrals all over Europe.
To make an image the shroud would have to be suspended above the statue or corpse ( or Jesus if it is real ). The cloth needs to be photo sensitive. I just don't see how it was done.
there is a tv documentary which purports to show that leonardo da vinci could have created the shroud...
Now all these idiots have to do is create it......still waiting.
If the shroud is a Medieval hoax how was it done? Lots of theories but none have reproduced the same results. The main question is why would a medieval forger have bothered with such an elaborate method, defying even 21st century analysis, when the crudest forged holy relics were readily accepted in those times.
A few years ago I watched a bunch of videos on Youtube that were very interesting about the people that did the big study which occurred very shortly after I got saved.
I was always open minded about it’s authenticity, but after watching those videos, I became as convinced as the surviving scientists that the Shroud was authentic. Like another wrote up there, “no proof that it’s Jesus”, but it’s a first century cloth that cannot be duplicated.
I took a bunch of HD copies of the man’s face and body on the cloth and it moves me spiritually as it depicts the serious suffering He went through for us all.
If you want on or off the Shroud of Turin Ping List, Freepmail me.
"The shroud is impressed with the image of the body of a gaunt, bearded man with long hair. "
The author of the article shows he is completely unfamiliar with with the Shroud of Turin with this thumb-nail description. The Man on the Shroud is not "gaunt," he’s been described as muscular and robust, which has been one of the critiques of the Shroud from critics who expect a pansy like Christ. They forget he was raised by a carpenter, which in that age meant working with trees, logs, and large sized timber, not small light pieces of wood. Carpenters had to make the planks and boards they’d use to build with, and then carry it to work sites, so they had muscles.
"But Russian interference was no hoax. The Kremlin, in fact, wanted Trump to be elected. The major U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Russian spies interfered in our election on orders of their president, Vladimir Putin. We have known this since at least January 2017 when the director of national intelligence released a declassified version of a report on Russian meddling.
Now the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee has released its report on the matter, finding that representatives of the Trump campaign had communicated numerous times with Russian agents and had welcomed their help.
This is similar to the Vikan confabulation of an assumption elevated to a fact. "But Russian interference was no hoax. The Kremlin, in fact, wanted Trump to be elected." There is actually zero evidence that this is true.
The Russian Facebook and YouTube hijinks according to all analysis was equally divided amount ads for both Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump, with a liberal sprinkling of ads touting other candidates, plus ads in general pushing chaos and divisive memes.
There was no general preference one way or the other, but if any were toward Trump, they were to undermine the presumed future President Clinton’s administration because Trump was assumed by all pundits to not have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning, which the Kremlin and Putin had to know.
The Kremlin also had plenty of hooks into HRC already through millions donated to her and Bill through the Clinton Foundation ($145 million leverage for Uranium One), which far exceeded the paltry $200,000 expended in internet ad buys expended by the Russian meddling! Hillary was a known, already owned, bought and paid for Russian (at least leased, along with multiple other "owners") asset. Evidence galore points to that fact.