Thomas de Wesselow testimony

otseng wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 8:27 am If the shroud was truly a medieval artwork, the above facts would make no sense. Why should scant attention be made to it by the art community, but it would be the most scientifically analyzed artifact? It is a pioneer in many aspects of art techniques centuries before others have discovered or used them. Yet it is not credited by the art community as being the first of its kind. There is practically dead silence from the art community on the shroud.

Another observation of silence of the TS from the art world by art historian Thomas de Wesselow:

The idea that the Shroud is a medieval work of art is simply untenable. It doesn’t look like a medieval work of art. It’s not made like one. And it’s certainly not conceived like one. And that’s why art historians like me, or not like me, actually have completely ignored the the Shroud of Turin over the course of the last century. It just doesn’t fit into the history of art.