• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Does the Shroud of Turin Show Expected Elongation of the Head in 2D?"

JayUtah said:
Was and is. Claiming that the Archbishop of Turin would want to sabotage a test for the authenticity of the shroud by substituting medieval cloth requires him to act against his interest.
Click to expand...
True. The timing of the fake's appearance during the relic craze is one factor against it.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Yes, that's why the image on the shroud is correct, and all the paintings on the subject are wrong, and which ones would the forger have used?
Click to expand...
The image is very obviously wrong. This is one of the numerous factors showing the cloth is a medieval fake.
bobdroege7 said:
The fingers being too long on the shroud is also a problem, any image of Christ from that time period should be perfect, not distorted.
Click to expand...
Nonsense.
bobdroege7 said:
The fact that the image is a photographic negative is sufficient to prove that it is not a forgery.
Click to expand...
That is also utter nonsense.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Not total conspiratorial bollocks

" The other half was cut into three segments, and packaged for the labs in a separate room by Tite and the archbishop. The lab representatives were not present at this packaging process, in accordance with the protocol."

www.wikiwand.com

Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin - Wikiwand

The Shroud of Turin, a linen cloth that tradition associates with the crucifixion and burial of Jesus, has undergone numerous scientific tests, the most notable...
www.wikiwand.com
Click to expand...
I know about the procedures. I have no doubt that I know more of the minutia than you do.
There was no fakery, other than the faking of the shroud to separate the gullible from their money.
 
JayUtah said:
And what is your evidence that that happened? Why would he want to do that?
Click to expand...

Because it shows that the man in the shroud survived the crucifixion, see the Quran, which means that Christ did not die for our sins, and what follows from that is that Christianity a total fraud.

An archbishop would possibly want to avoid that if at all possible.

Were there any other questions?
 
sackett said:
Woohoo! It's the AntiJabba!

But seriously, AntJab, I for one know that Christ didn't die for MY sins. He didn't have to.

Yours, now....
Click to expand...
I know he didn't die for my sins either, not being a Catholic, Episcopalian, or Christian either.

And since he died in France...
 
bobdroege7 said:
Because it shows that the man in the shroud survived the crucifixion, see the Quran, which means that Christ did not die for our sins, and what follows from that is that Christianity a total fraud.

An archbishop would possibly want to avoid that if at all possible.

Were there any other questions?
Click to expand...
No, but I'd still like an answer to the questions I asked. This free-form fantasy seems to allude to the topics my question covered, but simply spins the conspiracy theory deeper without providing much of an answer.

Let's go one question at a time. What is your evidence that the Archbishop of Turin switched the fibers?
 
bobdroege7 said:
And, a medieval forger would not have left the loincloth out of the picture.
Click to expand...
If it was genuine the arms would have been of a possible length. They aren't, therefore it's a forgery.

That's just one of the reasons it's an obvious forgery, by the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom