Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33164668.amp

This was a good overview article with all the different theories around the shroud (most of them explaining why people think it is a fake).

However the Pope has diplomatically acknowledged the sincerity of pilgrims who travel to pay their respects to the shroud. However, he does not content it is definitely the burial cloth that Jesus was wrapped in.

Also if the shroud is 14 feet - wouldn’t that make Jesus exceptionally tall?

A shroud would be wrapped around the body, not cover the body from head to toe.

Anonymous wrote:3 dimensional qualities of the shroud image that can’t be duplicated

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/3D%20Characteristic%20Jackson%20Jumper%201982%20OCR.pdf

The image is a negative image

https://shroud3d.com/introduction/image-qualities-of-the-shroud-of-turin/

Do their conclusions really support that claim? That is not how I interpreted their conclusions …

It may be true though

Anonymous wrote:^^

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33164668.amp

This was a good overview article with all the different theories around the shroud (most of them explaining why people think it is a fake).

However the Pope has diplomatically acknowledged the sincerity of pilgrims who travel to pay their respects to the shroud. However, he does not content it is definitely the burial cloth that Jesus was wrapped in.

Also if the shroud is 14 feet - wouldn’t that make Jesus exceptionally tall?

3 dimensional qualities of the shroud image that can’t be duplicated

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/3D%20Characteristic%20Jackson%20Jumper%201982%20OCR.pdf

The image is a negative image

https://shroud3d.com/introduction/image-qualities-of-the-shroud-of-turin/

^^

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33164668.amp

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does the word “fake” even apply to the only artifact in human possession that modern technology cannot replicate with all the resources of the world being an image of crucified Christ?

And the standard should be to replicate it with 13th century technology to satisfy the skeptics. As a scientist and a contrarian the willful obfuscation always perks my instincts directly over the target.

^ the linen is from the 13th century. It's a hoax

So.

It’s the only artifact in human history that can’t be duplicated by 21st or 13th century technology and it’s an image of crucified Christ

Link to evidence for this claim?

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33164668.ampIt’s

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does the word “fake” even apply to the only artifact in human possession that modern technology cannot replicate with all the resources of the world being an image of crucified Christ?

And the standard should be to replicate it with 13th century technology to satisfy the skeptics. As a scientist and a contrarian the willful obfuscation always perks my instincts directly over the target.

^ the linen is from the 13th century. It's a hoax

So.

It’s the only artifact in human history that can’t be duplicated by 21st or 13th century technology and it’s an image of crucified Christ

Link to evidence for this claim?

If you read anything about the shroud, you’d know the scientific community cannot come to a definitive decision on the authenticity of the shroud.

They just don’t know if it’s authentic or not.

The pp posted an article written by a journalism major that contributed to the Live Science website that stated that the shroud was controversial and the scientists who have examined pieces of the shroud and the shroud itself cannot come to a conclusion about it.

It’s extremely easy to find that information, and it’s disingenuous that someone cherry picked small
bits of an article and claimed the shroud was a fake.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does the word “fake” even apply to the only artifact in human possession that modern technology cannot replicate with all the resources of the world being an image of crucified Christ?

And the standard should be to replicate it with 13th century technology to satisfy the skeptics. As a scientist and a contrarian the willful obfuscation always perks my instincts directly over the target.

^ the linen is from the 13th century. It's a hoax

So.

It’s the only artifact in human history that can’t be duplicated by 21st or 13th century technology and it’s an image of crucified Christ

Link to evidence for this claim?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does the word “fake” even apply to the only artifact in human possession that modern technology cannot replicate with all the resources of the world being an image of crucified Christ?

And the standard should be to replicate it with 13th century technology to satisfy the skeptics. As a scientist and a contrarian the willful obfuscation always perks my instincts directly over the target.

^ the linen is from the 13th century. It's a hoax

So.

It’s the only artifact in human history that can’t be duplicated by 21st or 13th century technology and it’s an image of crucified Christ

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does the word “fake” even apply to the only artifact in human possession that modern technology cannot replicate with all the resources of the world being an image of crucified Christ?

And the standard should be to replicate it with 13th century technology to satisfy the skeptics. As a scientist and a contrarian the willful obfuscation always perks my instincts directly over the target.

^ the linen is from the 13th century. It's a hoax

Now there is a theory that the earthquake at Jesus crucifixion may have corrupted the carbon dating methodology.

So just is out as to whether it is a fake.

There is some corroborating evidence for the purported trajectory from Jesus disciple to modern Turkey to France to England back to France and then to Italy.

But remains controversial.

Anonymous wrote:How does the word “fake” even apply to the only artifact in human possession that modern technology cannot replicate with all the resources of the world being an image of crucified Christ?

And the standard should be to replicate it with 13th century technology to satisfy the skeptics. As a scientist and a contrarian the willful obfuscation always perks my instincts directly over the target.

^ the linen is from the 13th century. It's a hoax