theidiot wrote:aspire1670 wrote:
The shroud was debunked to death on the old RD Forum. But wait, what is this........
Well, I'm not familiar with the debunking on the RD Forum, but judging that this is a new forum, and not with all the same people.
I would just like to hear a general argument on why the shroud has been shown without any reasonable doubt to be a fake, by posters here who believe it has.
In 1988 three of the best radiocarbon dating labs in the world tested three pieces of the so-called "Shroud". Their results were that the fabric of the "Shroud" dates to AD 1262-1384 with 95% confidence. This proves the "Shroud" is a Medieval fake and this fits with all the other evidence we have about the "Shroud's" origins:
1. It first appears being exhibited by a French noble family, the de Charnys, in 1353.
2. Its authenticity was immediately challenged by the local bishop, Henri de Poitiers, who found the artist who had faked it. The bishop ordered the de Charnys to stop exhibiting the Shroud.
3. In 1389 the de Charny's try exhibiting the Shroud again. The new bishop of Troyes, Pierre D'Arcis, appeals to Pope Clement VII. Despite being a relative of the de Charnys, the Pope can't argue with the evidence that the Shroud is a fake and orders his relatives to exhibit the Shroud as a representation of the "true" Shroud and not the real thing.
4. The Shroud later passed over to the Savoy family in Italy and the fact that it was a fake was forgotten - the correspondence between Pope Clement and Bishop Pierre D'Arcis was not rediscovered until the Nineteenth Century, by which time the Shroud was being venerated as the real thing by millions.
5. The weave of the cloth corresponds to fabric woven in Medieval France but does not correspond to the type of linen used for burial in First Century Palestine.
6. The image on the "Shroud" corresponds to Medieval artistic conventions, but does
not correspond to human anatomy. The eyes are too high up in the face to belong to a human, though this was how faces were depicted in Medieval gothic-style art
7. The face corresponds to Medieval depictions of Jesus - long hair, forked beard - but it not correspond to how devout First Century Jews looked. In the First Century Jews considered long hair to be a decadent and pagan "Greek" affectation and kept their hair short.
8. In 1979 leading microscopist Walter McCrone examined the "Shroud" and found the so-called "bloodstains" were actually made up of red ochre and vermilion - red pigments used in the Middle Ages. This also explains why they are still reddish-brown: actual blood would have oxidised to black centuries ago. McCrone also found smaller fragments of other pigments on the "Shroud".
ALL the evidence lines up and points to one conclusion: it's a fake. Given that two Catholic bishops and a Pope said so at the time, it's amazing that anyone ever thought otherwise. The scientific evidence backs up what these sceptical Medieval clergymen already told us -
it's a fake.
Case closed.
by 
