Alas no. The weave is well described, but we know little enough about how it was sized or bleached, and, as we have seen, descriptions of the image are somewhat contradictory.Nature of the cloth is very clear indeed.
I think it can, once the image has been correctly described.Science cannot explain the image on the cloth.
The manufacture of a textile by hand from flax plants involves several stages, and various processes are involved. Different times and places used different processes. Ray Rogers, one of the foremost members of STuRP, and certainly the most celebrated scientist, put much store in the manufacturing process having left residue on the cloth. Other STuRP scientists thought otherwise. It would be good to know the truth.How do you know it was sized or bleached? Where does it state that?
Actually, as a review of this thread will quickly show you, the opposite is the case. I want to explore the evidence to find out whether the Shroud is a fake or not. It is the authenticists who cannot bear to see the evidence for authenticity challenged, and want to hide behind blanket assertions without substance such as ‘Science is at a loss when it comes to the shroud.’Again, you are determined to ‘try’ and prove the Shroud to be a fake.
Like that. The same old same old. As I said. Science is not dumbfounded. Lost4words is.Science is at a loss when it comes to the shroud.
If anything, ‘EVERYTHING’ points to it as being a miracle!
Be not perturbed, Leonhard; Undead_rat has a particular and peculiar vendetta against me alone. He strongly suspects that you, and probably abuts as well, are merely some of my avatars. Like many authenticists of my internet acquaintance, his inability to cope with reasoned arguments for inauthenticity has reduced him to gibbering incoherence and personal abuse.I don’t even live in the same country as Hugh Farey.
I’m honestly surprised you’d go for this kind of slander.
You are entitled to feel that way but while others have been putting forward substantial discussion points you have simply come up with one liners and no evidence. Watching a video doesn’t make you an expert.The Shroud is a wonder. Its a miracle. It is, for me, the Shroud of Jesus.
Why not? Why shouldnt it be? Everything points to it as being so.
Not, as far as I know, that being called a Baha’i when one isn’t constitutes abuse, I suppose. I’m sure they’re all very nice people. I’m just not one of them.The words of a secret Baha’i? A rabid atheist? An ardent Shroud skeptic? What do you think?
So you have said. Many times. But it isn’t true, is it? Why go on and on repeating the same falsehood over and over again? What good will it do?Science is dumbfounded though.
The Scientists who examined the Shroud in 1978 claimed they knew exactly what it was made of: “The image was produced by a dehydrative oxidative process of the cellulose structure of the linen to yield a conjugated carbonyl group as the chromophore.”They cannot say what the image is made of.
True. Probably.There is real human blood on it.
False. Certainly. You really ought to keep up with current research rather than rely on the findings of last century.The date testing was from a repaired area!
Have you any idea of the evidence for and against this hypothesis, or are you just quoting blindly from something you vaguely remember seeing once?Even faint Roman coin impressions can be seen on the eyes!
Why? It has no bearing whatever on a medieval artwork.Can those that doubt the shroud please explain how Jesus was able to perform miracles?
The greater is a more general campaign against the woolly thinking, selective use of evidence and occasional deliberate misrepresentation of religious fundamentalists generally. There seems to be a general decline in Christian religious adherence, which the increasingly rational stance of the Church is doing its best to maintain, but there is a powerful body of irrationalists who, rather than attract people, actually deter them.
Thank you Mr Farey. So if I read your comments correctly, you believe your main priority in posting so many detailed posts about the Shroud on a Catholic forum is evangelising to gain more Christians/Catholics by demolishing the single most recognisable and most important Christian/Catholic relic in the world?But by coming across as mean-spirited in attitude and misrepresentative in evidence, their attempt to ‘speak to all nations’ will prove thoroughly counter-productive. I think that my steady presentation of easily confirmed evidence, and logically presented conclusions from that evidence, coupled to my unswerving faith in the Church, will do a lot more to win people to it than intemperate blustering.
More meaningless one liners! Nothing to support your opinion!You are closing your eyes to the truth.