The largest blood stain on the TS is from the side wound and the blood that gathered underneath the body (blood belt, lumbar belt) from the side wound. https://renewaljournal.com/2021/12/22/m … -of-turin/ The side wound is mentioned in John 19:34: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out …
Diogenes wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 12:57 pm This is the wrong approach. The estimated population of the world in the 1st Century CE and the 14th Century is, very roughly, 200-400 million; therefore, without more qualifiers the chance the Shroud is that of Jesus of Nazareth is about 200-400 million to one AGAINST, even …
Another area of blood marks is on the head that match the accounts on the crown of thorns. According to the New Testament, a woven crown of thorns (Greek: στέφανος ἐξ ἀκανθῶν, translit. stephanos ex akanthōn or ἀκάνθινος στέφανος, akanthinos stephanos) was placed on the head of Jesus during the events leading up to his …
https://www.raydowning.com/blog/2016/2/ … d-of-turin To reiterate, all my arguments so far is the TS is not artwork, but an actual body was involved. The body could be Jesus of Nazareth or it could be someone else. I assert the evidence of the blood patterns correlates with the textual evidence from the Bible and that the image …
STURP team members, Vernon Miller and Samuel Pellicori, took various photographic images of the TS in 1977. UV photographs revealed the blood stains more clearly than compared to normal photographs. They published a paper on the UV findings in Ultraviolet fluorescence photography of the Shroud of Turin in 1981. One of the nondestructive techniques used …
This is absolutely a dead giveaway that we’re looking at the work of an artist. It’s easy to see how an artist could have painted the figures separately and accidentally made the back side of the figure longer than the front side, but it is hard to see how, if the shroud were authentic, Jesus’s …
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:49 am Mechthild Flury-Lemberg is an expert in the restoration of textiles, who headed the restoration and conservation of the Turin Shroud in 2002. She has rejected the theory of the “invisible reweaving”, pointing out that it would be technically impossible to perform such a repair without leaving traces, …
Read more “Mechthild Flury-Lemberg rejects invisible reweave”
The 1988 C-14 dating of the TS is considered the top evidence against the authenticity of the shroud. During the past 15+ pages, I’ve argued the C-14 evidence can be dismissed. Here is a summary of my arguments: 1. It is often claimed the C-14 dating is conclusive evidence the shroud is a fake. Even …
There is an ironic twist in the C-14 story. Teddy Hall, who had stated about the shroud, “someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it”, was the one responsible for exposing the Piltdown Man hoax. The exposure of the Piltdown Man fossils as a fraud, and the debunking of the …
As I mentioned before, I actually believe the raw dates of the C-14 from the labs are correct. The reason it has a medieval date is because the C-14 sample also contained recent material. As proposed by Benford and Marino, it contained a cotton fabric that was used to repair that section of the shroud …