Shroud of Turin is a painting!!!!!

[JTEM]

Here's an article that identifies the artist:

https://www.medievalists.net/2011/06/did-giotto-create-the-shroud-of-turin/

Not sure how accurate that is.

Okay, now the science...

"Based on his microscopic and chemical analysis of the tape
samples obtained by STURP, McCrone concluded that the image
on the Shroud was painted with a dilute pigment of red ochre
in a collagen tempera (i.e., gelatin) medium, using a technique
similar to the grisaille employed in the 14th century by
Simone Martini and other European artists."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_McCrone#Shroud_of_Turin

So the claim that the Shroud of Turin is unquestionably NOT
a painting is false. Credible scientific work did conclude
otherwise.

AND, if you read the next paragraph for comprehension you will
discover that even amongst his detractors their was agreement
of pigment... they simply claim not enough.

Hmm. Wouldn't it be interesting if we were all right? Like,
someone took the 14th century equivalent to the image of
Jesus on toast -- the image of Jesus in a stain on a table
cloth -- and then "augmented" that image with a brush and
pigment?

My point here isn't to arrive at a conclusion so much as to
illustration the fact of the debate. We are fed one side --
"No paint" -- when there are scientists who did see painting.

[Madhu]

I cannot understand the obsession with the turin shroud, (or your
compulsive need to rewrite, whitewash and defend RCC history)

The turin shroud has zero theological significance. On analysis can't
you see that none of the claims it makes has any relevance to the
biblical Jesus? ALl the claims made around shroud are essentially
elaborate strawmen which have no basis on anything relevant to the
issues.

[JTEM]

Post by Madhu
I cannot understand the obsession with the turin shroud, (or your
compulsive need to rewrite, whitewash and defend RCC history)

It's on topic and clearly you feel an emotional reaction to it, so
why not?

Check this out:

Post by Madhu
The turin shroud has zero theological significance.

Does it need one?

The claim is that it is a miracle. THAT claim doesn't need it to
be the actual burial cloth of Christ, it doesn't even need a
Christ. All it needs is for it not to be reproducible.

Post by Madhu
On analysis can't
you see that none of the claims it makes has any relevance to the
biblical Jesus?

Why would you frame it in terms of the bible & Jesus despite my
CONSTANTLY explaining that it has nothing to do with either?

Again, if it is a miracle then it's a miracle!

[Mike]

Post by JTEM
https://www.medievalists.net/2011/06/did-giotto-create-the-shroud-of-turin/
Not sure how accurate that is.
Okay, now the science...
"Based on his microscopic and chemical analysis of the tape
samples obtained by STURP, McCrone concluded that the image
on the Shroud was painted with a dilute pigment of red ochre
in a collagen tempera (i.e., gelatin) medium, using a technique
similar to the grisaille employed in the 14th century by
Simone Martini and other European artists."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_McCrone#Shroud_of_Turin
So the claim that the Shroud of Turin is unquestionably NOT
a painting is false. Credible scientific work did conclude
otherwise.
AND, if you read the next paragraph for comprehension you will
discover that even amongst his detractors their was agreement
of pigment... they simply claim not enough.
Hmm. Wouldn't it be interesting if we were all right? Like,
someone took the 14th century equivalent to the image of
Jesus on toast -- the image of Jesus in a stain on a table
cloth -- and then "augmented" that image with a brush and
pigment?
My point here isn't to arrive at a conclusion so much as to
illustration the fact of the debate. We are fed one side --
"No paint" -- when there are scientists who did see painting.

What about the idea that's it's just a random fluke that means
absolutely nothing at all? What if it was just a piece of cloth
someone through in the trash and there was something in the trash
that left the imprint. Later someone accidentally picked it up and
invented a whole story around it. All of the carbon dating and
speculation would lead to nowhere, simply because there is nothing
that has any kind of meaning in that particular context.

[JTEM]

Post by Mike
What about the idea that's it's just a random fluke that means
absolutely nothing at all?

If it's a random fluke then it packs a great deal of meaning!

As a matter of fact, REGARDLESS of answer that answer is significant!

If it's the actual burial cloth of Jesus, well, YES! Very significant.

If it's a hoax then there's SIGNIFICANT repercussions for the media
AND SCIENCE.

If it's some random fluke, a natural occurrence, it means there's
something we don't know/understand nature, a discovery yet to be
made!

Post by Mike
What if it was just a piece of cloth
someone through in the trash and there was something in the trash
that left the imprint.

Totally possible ala the Jesus Toast...

https://www.nbcnews.com/healthmain/why-some-see-face-jesus-their-toast-1c6436912

Makes you go "Hmm..."

[Steven Douglas]

Post by JTEM
https://www.medievalists.net/2011/06/did-giotto-create-the-shroud-of-turin/
Not sure how accurate that is.
Okay, now the science...
"Based on his microscopic and chemical analysis of the tape
samples obtained by STURP, McCrone concluded that the image
on the Shroud was painted with a dilute pigment of red ochre
in a collagen tempera (i.e., gelatin) medium, using a technique
similar to the grisaille employed in the 14th century by
Simone Martini and other European artists."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_McCrone#Shroud_of_Turin
So the claim that the Shroud of Turin is unquestionably NOT
a painting is false. Credible scientific work did conclude
otherwise.

By one guy, who was at odds with ALL the other scientists
who tested the Shroud.

Post by JTEM
AND, if you read the next paragraph for comprehension you will
discover that even amongst his detractors their was agreement
of pigment... they simply claim not enough.

Well, pigment is in our skin, isn't it?

Post by JTEM
Hmm. Wouldn't it be interesting if we were all right? Like,
someone took the 14th century equivalent to the image of
Jesus on toast -- the image of Jesus in a stain on a table
cloth -- and then "augmented" that image with a brush and
pigment?
My point here isn't to arrive at a conclusion so much as to
illustration the fact of the debate. We are fed one side --
"No paint" -- when there are scientists who did see painting.

One scientist, among many who disagreed with him. But
again, I don't need the Shroud to be the actual burial
cloth of Jesus for my faith in the fact that Jesus is
the Son of God, was crucified, buried, and then raised
from the dead before ascending into Heaven to sit at
the right hand of God the Father.

[JTEM]

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by JTEM
So the claim that the Shroud of Turin is unquestionably NOT
a painting is false. Credible scientific work did conclude
otherwise.

By one guy

No...

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by JTEM
AND, if you read the next paragraph for comprehension you will
discover that even amongst his detractors their was agreement
of pigment... they simply claim not enough.

Well, pigment is in our skin, isn't it?

No. The context is paint.

Like I said; "if you read...for comprehension."

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by JTEM
My point here isn't to arrive at a conclusion so much as to
illustration the fact of the debate. We are fed one side --
"No paint" -- when there are scientists who did see painting.

One scientist, among many who disagreed with him.

They went so far as to remove his name from the list of scientist
on the team!

THAT speakings volumes... canceling anyone who fails to comply.

[Steven Douglas]

Post by JTEM

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by JTEM
So the claim that the Shroud of Turin is unquestionably NOT
a painting is false. Credible scientific work did conclude
otherwise.

By one guy

No...

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by JTEM
AND, if you read the next paragraph for comprehension you will
discover that even amongst his detractors their was agreement
of pigment... they simply claim not enough.

Well, pigment is in our skin, isn't it?

No. The context is paint.
Like I said; "if you read...for comprehension."

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by JTEM
My point here isn't to arrive at a conclusion so much as to
illustration the fact of the debate. We are fed one side --
"No paint" -- when there are scientists who did see painting.

One scientist, among many who disagreed with him.

They went so far as to remove his name from the list of scientist
on the team!
THAT speakings volumes... canceling anyone who fails to comply.

Maybe because he's so wrong.

[JTEM]

Post by Steven Douglas
Maybe because he's so wrong.

"He" is wrong. "He" is.

In science, the methodology can be faulty or "Wrong." Not the
person.

Again, the person was cancelled. The person.

[Steven Douglas]

Post by JTEM

Post by Steven Douglas
Maybe because he's so wrong.

"He" is wrong. "He" is.
In science, the methodology can be faulty or "Wrong." Not the
person.

You made it about the guy, so I followed your lead and
responded about the guy -- and for that, you criticize
me as if I'm the one who made it about the guy. You
made it about the guy.

Post by JTEM
Again, the person was cancelled. The person.

Yes, you told me that already. And I responded to it by
following your lead.

[JTEM]

Post by Steven Douglas
You made it about the guy

No. I made it about the paint he and others found.

[Steven Douglas]

Post by JTEM

Post by Steven Douglas
You made it about the guy

No. I made it about the paint he and others found.

Who are the others?

[JTEM]

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by JTEM

Post by Steven Douglas
You made it about the guy

No. I made it about the paint he and others found.

Who are the others?

Read the cite. The next paragraph.

[Steven Douglas]

Post by JTEM

Post by Steven Douglas

Post by JTEM

Post by Steven Douglas
You made it about the guy

No. I made it about the paint he and others found.

Who are the others?

Read the cite. The next paragraph.

I might get around to it someday.