Talk:Shroud of Turin

The Shroud of Christ: A pictorial look at its forensics and history

This got booted almost faster than a blink: click here

I find it interesting how much Wikipedia has changed in 10 years, when an almost identical version of this page was in the external links, and stayed there (in different forms) for over half a year, until the link became defunct.

From what I understand, exceptions for blog pages are possible, and I thought that this one would be appreciated, as it not only offers a concise but thorough look at the subject, but does so pictorially, as well.

I'm wondering if Wikipedia is using newer technology, allowing editors to stalk certain articles. Obviously, these changes, if they occur in less than one minute, are being made without giving the contribution any fair consideration. Quite a difference from 10 years ago! 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:D40E:7267:23D0:E01 (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It is a WP:PROFRINGE page, and it does not belong here. If it was tolerated ten years ago, that was a mistake, and it is a good thing if Wikipedia has changed since then. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

But these sentences, which cite to sources that DO NOT SUPPORT the text of the sentences, remain untouchable:

"Such fringe theories have been refuted by carbon-dating experts and others based on evidence from the shroud itself. Refuted theories include the medieval repair theory, the bio-contamination theories and the carbon monoxide theory." 69.12.13.37 (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean "DO NOT SUPPORT"? Did you read those sources? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes 69.12.13.37 (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Along those lines, there are MANY forensic experts and pathologists who have concluded that there was no way known to man that the image on the cloth, documented to be in three-dimensions, could have been created by any way known at the time to which the C14 testing dates the cloth.

A forensic expert would note that there was no way known to mankind at that time on how to create a 3-diminensional image of cloth.

Pathologists say that the accurate biology of the cloth [blood tested reflects that it came from one who was dying by asphyxiation] is astounding, because no one from that time was familiar with details of pathology.

In a room full of forensic experts and/or pathologists, you [as a devotee of the C14 testing] would be called a "fringe" theorist -- according to the [argumentative] way that term is being used within this article.

Genuine scientists don't dismiss the conclusion of another field of science as "fringe" simply because their own area of expertise indicates something different that other field of science. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTAFORUM. There are many crank shroudies publishing fringe nonsense about it. If you have a concrete proposal based on a reliable source, please make it. Bon courage (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Footnote 8 is to a highly reputable paper which does, in fact, question Rogers' conclusions, but it does so in a far more nuanced way than this sentence suggests, concluding: "We assume that there will be future studies on the Shroud of Turin. Any such future sampling should include another sample of the shroud away from the previous area sampled. In our opinion, such a study would be useful to confirm the previous results and should include both textile analysis and 14C measurements." Thus, the authors of the paper themselves are not claiming to establish "scientific consensus" but contributing to the consensus that additional testing is needed (over which there is, in fact, incredible scientific consensus that SHOULD be mentioned in this article).

Footnote 9 is from a dead website/blog, not a scholarly paper, and the archived copy would reflect this website entry was from a personal blog of the author and not peer-reviewed. That's really not a worthy citation to rebut Rogers' peer-reviewed paper published in a scholarly U of Cal science journal. He is plainly speaking personal opinion in this article, and not requesting peer-review -- in fact, he was being open and honest about that point.

Footnote 10 is a citation to an out-of-date Random House encyclopedia. That's just incredibly poor scholarship. And how does this refute scholarly papers that came later.

Footnote 11 is a citation to an article published in 1990 and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. To claim it rebuts an article written 15 years later (Rogers paper) is intolerable.

Footnote 12 cites to a web article by a genuine giant in this field, Dr. Christopher Bronk Ramsey. In that paper, Dr. Ramsey expresses measured doubt over the contamination by carbon monoxide theory, advanced by John Jackson, but he does not dismiss it out-of-hand: "The only way to see if this sort of contamination is possible is to do experimental work on modern linen. The key question is whether carbon monoxide reacts to any significant extent with linen." Notably, Dr. Ramsey also writes: "There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed. It is important that we continue to test the accuracy of the original radiocarbon tests as we are already doing. It is equally important that experts assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the Shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information."

Footnote 13 is to an on-line chemistry publication. Again, not really a worthy source to establish the claimed "scientific consensus."

I don't see how these two sentences can stand. They are not supported by legitimately cited sources. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Settled science is not "out of date". The book on this was closed long ago. All this stuff (including Ramsey) is covered in detail at Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin. Bon courage (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This is the response that I expected. Not very impressive at all. Six citations that clearly do not carry the weight of these two flawed sentences -- and your response is even worse. Just a warning: those who use the words "this is settled science" are usually proven wrong at a later date. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Doubt it. But even so it doesn't matter because Wikipedia doesn't try to be "right", merely to reflect what authoritative mainstream published sources are saying about a topic. Bon courage (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Your response makes no sense. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

With these two sentences, this Wikipedia page is doing an excellent job executing its goal of not trying to be right. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Science separates empirical fact from ideological Truth. Prior to the scientific revolution it was held that heavy objects fall faster than light ones, because Aristotle's rhetoric was more powerful than those who advocated the opposite. Aristotelian Truth was replaced by scientific fact - and the scientific revolution was the replacement of rhetoric (Truth) with empirically testable evidence (fact, a term borrowed from law). The same happened with the evolution of life on earth. It had been thought for over a century that life evolved, but Darwin described a mechanism and also showed examples of how this could be seen in real time through selective breeding. Darwin's work was not new or monolithic, it was incremental. Like Einstein, he took concepts that a lot of people had suspected and were testing, and stated them in a clear and unforgettable way: random mutation fixed by non-random selection over extremely long periods of time. The first two were well known to exist and were used daily by farmers and breeders, accepting the last only required ignoring man-made religious doctrine on the age of the earth.

Nothing in biology makes the slightest sense unless viewed with an understanding of evolution. Nothing in cosmology, geology or physics makes the slightest sense if you're determined to believe the universe is thousands, rather than billions, of years old.

That's science for you. Your Truth is not in line with empirical fact. Wikipedia is a fact-based project.
— User:JzG

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion would be delete the two sentences, since the footnoted sources don't support the claims made in the sentences. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've read them. The problem should be obvious: the article is claiming that the footnoted sources "refute" what are called "fringe" theories. First, the so-called "fringe theories" discussed are raised in many studies and papers that post-date the sources cited. It should be clear (for example) that a 2005 paper cannot "refute" a 2020 paper. Second, the labeling as "fringe" certain theories advanced by studies and articles published in highly respected academic and scientific journals, is argumentative. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

That is part of the normal fringe-theory situation: people refute the bullshit, and new bullshit is published afterward. Not impressive. Your opinion that something does not refute something else is also part of the normal fringe-theory situation: fringe believers deny that there has been a refutation of their claims because they conflate the refutation of reasoning in favor of unfalsifiable ideas with the logically impossible refutation of the ideas themselves. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Your response makes no sense. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty common for advocates of pseudoscience to continue publishing ideas that have been refuted. It is entirely possible for a 2005 paper to refute a 2020 paper if the latter rehashes arguments that have been raised before. When the same ideas are recycled over and over it is not necessary to prove them false each time. It's sufficient to call them out as already dealt with and move on.--Srleffler (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The case made by 69.12.13.37 (hike) to delete the sentences seems strong based on their source analysis. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Shroud has been confirmed as around his real time. Wikipedia Page should be edited. https://www.newsweek.com/turin-shroud-study-claims-controversial-cloth-date-time-jesus-1942310 Aerist (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it is just the usual "I invented a new dating method, its reliability has not been checked, but if I date this object I get the date I wanted it to have". Fanti does this regularly.

I moved your contribution down where it belongs. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Scientific papers both for and against the Shroud should be presented fairly. Many years ago, it was estimated that the Shroud had already undergone some half-a-million research hours by experts. Whatever the exact figures are, it's definitely the most researched object in human history, with many specialists in numerous fields presenting cases for its authenticity. That's about as far from 'fringe' as you can get.

I personally set out to disprove the Shroud through an honest analysis of all available data. Whether I liked it or not, I was willing to admit that there is, without any doubt, an overwhelming amount of evidence in its favor. I felt like I'd have to deceive myself to continue denying it, so I decided to let the guy live (besides, he seems to have humanity's best interests in mind, according to the New Testament).

This skeptic-frustrating piece of linen, it should be pointed out, is a world apart from Roman Catholic fakes (created to capitalize off of it), and it also has a proven history that far antiquates the existence of Roman Catholicism. Maybe it should be in a museum of human mysteries or something. Check out that blog, it really turns out to be well worth it: click here

By the way, if that main picture, the close-up, is in fact photo-shopped, shouldn't it be replaced with an accurate photo-negative? Otherwise, it should be described as 'artificially-enhanced'. But why have a false halo effect? The real photo-negative is impressive enough. 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:1C38:461:747C:51E5 (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not on your opinion, say-so, or argumentation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

And it just so happens that "reliable sources" on Wikipedia are those that perfectly align with what Wikipedia editors believe to be true. Amazing how that works. 98.128.158.210 (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Not true. There are also clueless Wikipedia editors who do not accept those sources. Can you please stop using this page as a forum? See WP:NOTFORUM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no science favouring the religious narrative. The shroud is a forgery. The "science" to the contrary consists of policy-based evidence making.

Plenty of religious people have no problem at all with this. It's only idolaters who do. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Idolaters?..

So you think that everyone who finds the evidence compelling also automatically feels compelled to worship the Shroud? That's silly.

I suppose there are those prone to worship the Shroud.

In fact, in Bible times, King Hezekiah disposed of a genuine artefact of Moses for this reason (Nehushtan). However, not everyone who considers the Shroud's realness a possibility wants to bow down and worship it.

Also, to assume that all scientific research of the Shroud is policy-based is not accurate.

STURP, for instance, had agnostics and atheists on board.

The radio-carbon dating, by contrast, was extremely policy-based. They were absolutely intent on disproving the Shroud, and did so by testing a medieval repair piece that had been documented by STURP. 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:840A:4A8A:2D9B:8F50 (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The radio-carbon dating did NOT test a repaired piece - this has been proven by actual science. In fact one of the leading STURP scientists verified that himself, using the actual photos taken by STURP. If you continue to ignore the actual evidence, then you will continue to wallow in self-imposed ignorance and frustration. The way it actually works is that Wikipedia editors align with the "reliable sources". That is not "amazing", it is merely scientific. Wdford (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the repair theory, to quote Jackson: "While this hypothesis has been argued on the basis of indirect chemistry, it can be discounted on the basis of evident bandings in the 1978 radiographs and transmitted light images of STURP. These data photographs show clearly that the banding structures (which are in the Shroud) propagate in an uninterrupted fashion through the region that would, ten years later, be where the sample was taken for radiocarbon dating." See here [1] You can get all this information at Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin, with minimal effort. Wdford (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The reason the piece was removed was that it was given to the pope as a good luck charm.

There's a time-period painting showing the piece missing before it had been repaired. See the link provided at the top of this topic. 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:5CDE:A36:F6B2:CF36 (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

STURP

@99Moons: As Doug Weller said at [2], We aren't impartial, we are a mainstream encyclopedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

2022 WAXD testing shows dates about 2000 years ago

Please update your article as the sample that was taken earlier was a repair.

https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47 https://www.ncregister.com/interview/holy-shroud-of-turin-s-authenticity-can-no-longer-be-disputed-expert-asserts 73.228.186.92 (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. MDPI journal. No thanks. Bon courage (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

See WP:MDPI for Wikipedia's take on this publisher.--Srleffler (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

See also Talk:Shroud of Turin/Archive 19#Wide Angle X-Ray Scattering. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

"faint image of the front and back of a man"

Having seen a lot of back-and-forth editing of the phrase "faint image of the front and back of a man" in the lede, I wonder if we should not be more explicit. I don't think there is any reasonable doubt that the image on the Shroud is meant to be an image of Jesus. That is clearly the artist's intent. It's not a miraculous image. It's not an authentic image, but it is indeed an image of Jesus. Can we come up with wording that is clear about who the depicted person is, without implying a supernatural origin?

How about "...is a length of linen cloth that bears a faint image, which appears to be a depiction of Jesus, showing both sides of the body."? -- Srleffler (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

How about "...is a length of linen cloth that bears a faint image, which appears to resemble a depiction of Jesus, showing both sides of the body."? Wdford (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Depiction implies artwork, and there is no evidence that this is an artwork. Nobody can say with that level of certainty what it is, certainly not in Wikipedia's voice. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

We are not saying that it IS a depiction, we are saying that it RESEMBLES a depiction. No cause for concerns here. Wdford (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

What that wording would convey seems already implied in the lead and would just add an extra sentence saying the same thing in a roundabout and semi-confusing way. "Resembles a depiction" is like saying a lion resembles a tiger because they walk on four legs but please disregard the stripes. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

There is much more resemblance between a lion and a tiger than just that they both walk on four legs. They can actually interbreed. However I take your point about leaving the sentence as is. I would actually like to go a bit further, to state that "... is a length of linen cloth dating to the Middle Ages that bears a faint image ... ". The current wording risks creating the false impression that the Shroud really is "the actual burial shroud". Wdford (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Judging from the disputed research and numerous points brought up on this talk page the wording 'dating to the Middle Ages' seems controversial enough to not be presented as fact without a qualifier. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The dating is not disputed by science, it is disputed only by a dwindling band of fringe supporters. The qualifier is already presented - some fringe supporters continue to clutch at straws, even though their straws have been scientifically refuted using actual science and actual evidence. Wdford (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It's better practice to introduce the dating in the context of how it was established. Tying the dating directly to the science that supports it reduces potential for conflict over the wording.--Srleffler (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the need for "appears to resemble". "Appears to be" already contains enough ambiguity. I acknowledge that depiction implies artwork and would be open to a more neutral phrase that doesn't carry that connotation.--Srleffler (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Rather leave that sentence as is, but change the next sentence to read "... after his crucifixion, during which time they believe Jesus's bodily image was miraculously imprinted on the cloth."

there is no evidence that this is an artwork Except the statement of the artist, the fact that the proportions of the depicted person are in agreement with the artistic standards of the time, the fact that pigments were found in it that were used back then, and the fact there was no other method in the Middle Ages to put a picture of a person on a 2D surface except art. Please stop pushing fringe views here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

All scientific research as "fringe"?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia can be a handy resource.

However, for certain topics considered to be controversial by general skeptics and anti-religious antagonists, there tends to be a suppressive and unreasonable twisting of Wikipedia's rules and standards in a form of cyber-bullying.

Concerning the Shroud, I can perfectly understand that there are those who quite honestly do not want for the public to be deceived by an unbalanced presentation favoring a hoax. I personally investigated the Shroud for this reason, but found the evidence in favor of it to far outweigh the sketchy carbon dating of the documented repair piece.

This article had been special-featured on Wikipedia with a more neutral perspective, but it has now swung way too far into being skeptic-dominated.

On one hand, truly biblical Christians ought to have no inherent need for the Shroud to prove their faith. If real, it's a bonus. However, if it's real and also helps people with their faith, then that's wonderful.

At the same time, general skeptics, as well as those who, with concern about religious hypocrisy, want to dispute anything pertaining to evidence for faith (or for whatever reason beyond a general skepticism), still need to be fair and ethical themselves. If there's evidence that contradicts their presuppositions.. Well, it happens. It happened to me on this very subject.

Even for something as silly as Flat-Earth Theory (that I find both absurd and unbiblical), it was relieving to see that people actually came up with some interesting arguments (seemingly unexplainable flight patterns, international forbiddance to enter Antarctica, as if hiding truth about the edge of the world, the possibility of photo-shopping space photos, etc). It was reassuring that at least they had their arguments, and although I strongly disagree, their arguments are still a matter-of-fact thing (I think the curved shadow of the earth on the moon ought to be convincing enough for them, though).

By contrast, in the case of the Shroud, there is a ton of extremely accurate and specific evidence that has been professionally confirmed and academically published.

The point is that both sides need to be presented fairly and accurately.

Much Shroud research cannot accurately be labeled "fringe", because of its having been conducted by experts and published in academic journals. To label such as fringe is a lie and makes Wikipedia itself appear fringe!

It's also shameful disrespect of professionals, many of whom are putting their reputations at stake to evaluate the data and offer their conclusions. This is no less than defamation!

It would be insensitive to label atheists as "fringe", simply because they constitute a small percentage of the population. And yet in the case of the Shroud, scientific proponents are both numerous and qualified!

As mentioned elsewhere, to assume that all scientific research of the Shroud is "policy-based" is not accurate. STURP, for instance, had agnostics and atheists on board. The radio-carbon dating, by contrast, was extremely policy-based. They were absolutely intent on disproving the Shroud, and did so by testing a medieval repair piece that had been documented by STURP.

This one experiment seems to be the main justification for settling the issue among skeptics, dismissing all contrasting evidence, no matter how impressive or authenticated.

However:

1.) This doesn't automatically change the results of all other types of investigation, such as forensic accuracy, recorded historic antiquity, un-reproducible production of the image, etc.

2.) Askew dating has occurred for other controversial artefacts. For example, see: Carbon dating the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some had tests showing B.C. dates and other showing dates ranging well into the 2nd Century A.D. Advocates for an early-abandoned Qumran site want to make the public think that Jude quoted from the Pseudepigraphic Book of Enoch, undermining New Testament divine inspiration (rather than Pseudo-Enoch quoting the New Testament, as seen in other types of late 1st Century and 2nd Century Gnostic-oriented literature). Yet coins at the site evidence ongoing habitation, and even a signed letter from Bar Kokhba himself was found in a cave with biblical scrolls! (confirming a 2nd Century presence).

3.) The radio-carbon dating of the Shroud was itself extremely controversial, as they tested a medieval repair piece documented by STURP. Other "explanations" are pointless and unhelpful, but I nonetheless acknowledge these views as existing theories.

'Nuff said.

I feel what I have shared here is entirely relevant. First one to cry "Wall of Text" is a rotten egg. :) 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:840A:4A8A:2D9B:8F50 (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Raymond E. Brown did not believe that the shroud is authentic. He did not belong to general skeptics and anti-religious antagonists.

The Catholic Church has no official stance upon whether it was Jesus' burial shroud.

Shrouds aren't photographic plates. You don't throw a shroud upon a bleeding corpse and get something like a portrait photo. That's not something a shroud can do. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that there's a variety of stances on the Shroud. That was a part of what I was trying to express. There's agnostics who are intrigued by it, and there's Christians who don't believe in it, both Roman Catholic and Protestant. STURP'S Jewish photographer Barrie Schwartz came to faith in Jesus as the Jewish Messiah through his involvement with the project. There are all sorts of examples.

No one can as of yet reproduce this type of image. It involves a fractional singe-ing of the linen fibers, as if some sort of energy beam formed the image. It's a puzzler, indeed.

Emperor Constantine VII noted in his day that the image involves no paint pigments. It's basically an unsolved mystery and should be treated as such. 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:586D:39F7:F595:1D87 (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Energy beam? or just painted cloth? It's a puzzler indeed. I wonder what William of Occam would say ... I know what Wikipedia is obliged to say. Bon courage (talk) 05:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Not a puzzler for you of course, since your entire world would fall apart if the shroud would turn out to be authentic. So let's not pretend it's a huge shocker that you have conveniently convinced yourself that the "science is settled" on this matter. 98.128.158.210 (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

See WP:BIGMISTAKE. Bon courage (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

"and demand that it be corrected to conform to their own point of view"

Ringing any bells, kettle? 98.128.158.210 (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The evidence supporting the C14 dating is very clear, and the evidence debunking all the fringe hypotheses is actually very clear as well. This is laid out in the articles already. The Special Contributor has presumably read through it all in search of a loophole, has found no loopholes, and now is muttering around the fringes trying to pretend that the evidence doesn't exist. Wdford (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I guess some of you aren't aware that there's no paint. If you accept STURP, then check it out. 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:C407:D9DC:26B8:96C1 (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Your problem: WP:OR and WP:FRINGE sources are banned. Wikipedia is based upon mainstream science. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The image is caused by a different level of dehydration of some fibers vs others. That has been established by science. The issue is about what caused this selective dehydration? Some have speculated about lasers or neutron reactions or photographic reactions etc. Others jump happily toward holy miracles. Some have experimented with heat-scorching. The most probable theory is that the cloth was originally painted, using different colors that had different chemistries, and the paint "damaged" the fibers to differing extents. The paint has long since crumbled away and been washed off - one author reported that the Shroud was repeatedly boiled by the "fraud detectors" of their day. However the impact of that paint persists in the faint image which remains. Some researchers have tested this theory, and have found that medieval paint substances do indeed mark linen in this manner. The image is fading away over time, as the non-painted fibers gradually also dehydrate with age to the same levels as the formerly-painted fibers. It was once much more visible than today.Wdford (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

You are a coward who willingly lies to the public to preserve your own narrow minded dogmatic ideology.

I'm sure you look down upon Christians as a bunch of stupid bumpkins but it is YOU the Atheist who needs to slander and discredit every single possible piece of supernatural evidence in order to stop your whole worldview from tumbling down like a jenga tower.

WHY CAN'T BOTH SIDES BE REPRESENTED EQUALLY AND FAIRLY?

Your mental presuppositions blind you from taking any counter evidence seriously. 70.23.31.249 (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe in God. I can tell you for a fact: there is no evidence for God or gods, nor for the supernatural. None, whatsoever.

“I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith”. -Immanuel Kant. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Closing thoughts (no further argumentation) - As the one who started this topic, I simply wanted to apologize for a fellow-Shroudie's frustration. I agree that there seems to have come to be a biased imbalance on this article, considering all the research. However, if the commenter claims to be a fellow-Christian: You should make your point not only with boldness, but also with gentleness, as the New Testament teaches, "in humility correcting those who are in opposition" (2 Timothy 2:25). We don't want to either fall short of this, nor to become oppositional ourselves, or we're denying an element of our faith!

By the way, the fallen-off paint theory accepts the well-documented fact that there is not any paint currently on the Shroud. That's the best anti-supernatural argument I've yet heard, and one of the first that takes many of the different documented facts into consideration, although I definitely think it absolutely fails to explain everything.

It seems rather odd to me to be able to shut down a topic and claim it has nothing more to offer! This seems to be partly on the basis of referring the topic to a different article talk page, however the premise of the topic was that all scientific research should be given a fair presentation on the main article.

It's certainly a hot topic! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:5CDE:A36:F6B2:CF36 (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Shroudies" and "Doubties"

As it's been pointed out, there's a variety of outlooks on the Shroud.

Some may feel sorry for those whom they think are susceptible to a clever hoax, while others may feel like the Shroud's evidence is being suppressed.

I think we all need to have more understanding with one another in the process of hashing this out, not for starting a chat forum, but simply to help put things in perspective for improving the article.

Those who've had a driver's license know that we have to be careful to watch out for "blind spots", those areas that happen to be outside our scope of vision. We do this intellectually by staying open to possibilities that we hadn't considered.

The Shroud is not essential to genuine faith, and so it can be critically evaluated. Unexplainable phenomenon are not a problem for Agnostics or even Atheism. There could turn out to be an explanation that satisfies everybody.

Personally, I tend to think of Jesus after his Resurrection as an extra-dimensional being. Not as an alien, but as the Eternal Spirit incarnated in human flesh. Not to get too theological here, just that we don't need to feel threatened or spooked by an artefact, if it's real. I know it makes some people uncomfortable. But it's actually pretty cool!

Even if someone pulled this off as a hoax (although, I highly doubt it being a hoax), one has to at least admit it's a stroke of genius, whether created by God, man or by both God and man at the same time by someone who happens to be both!

The uniqueness of this thing is why some have proposed Leonardo da Vinci as its inventor, a man who was ahead of his time (However, the Shroud does have a much older recorded history). 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:586D:39F7:F595:1D87 (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The science is settled, true believers deny it and tell themselves weird stories. Same as for many WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. Wikipedia sides with reality as sourced in the WP:BESTSOURCES. Bon courage (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Weird stories?

I started this topic specifically to encourage mutual respect.

What I'm finding is that a lot of Doubties (as I once was) seem willfully ignorant of the actual Shroud data. People are saying that it's a painted image and such. If this was the case, there wouldn't have been so many scientists studying it!

Perhaps this article shows a major failure of Wikipedia. The site is becoming irremediable and completely unreliable for articles on controversial subjects. It's simply impossible to have a balanced approach when people are irrationally or unreasonably antsy with their use of technology.

And I'm not signaling out anyone in particular, it's more like a new status quo or a "cancel culture" mindset.

Please try at least reading this blog that sums up much of the evidence for the Shroud, and see what you think: Click here

Wikipedia's article on the Shroud of Turin had actually been a special-featured article and was less biased. It's now a good example of a hostile take-over.

It's starting to look like an anathema-type situation, in other words (in the original New Testament sense of a changed spiritual reality), of having reached a point where there exists, in general, a definite commitment to a certain level of insensitive and calloused opposition. It's like a socio-spiritual phenomena that's gotten much worse than I remember on Wikipedia many years ago (even with as bad as it was then). I've been evaluating how it got this much worse.

It seems like the result of a combination of newer tech methods, where antagonists are empowered to stalk articles on Wikipedia, as well as other societal factors and changing attitudes and mentalities. It's really sad. :( 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:C407:D9DC:26B8:96C1 (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

undermining New Testament divine inspiration—that's just your own POV. I did not hear many Christian theologians making such a claim. Yup, there is university-level theology, expressed in what Wikipedia deems to be WP:RS. Your blog isn't one.

Further, since WP:GEVAL was enshrined in our WP:RULES, your POV has lost the game, here at Wikipedia.

Rhetoric and persuasion might have some place, but at the end of the day these cannot supplant mainstream WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

There is also the probable case that the shroud was never intended to be a hoax. It was probably painted as a genuine artwork on a large piece of cloth, for use as decoration in a church or chapel. Over time the paint crumbled away, and then somebody noted that the missing paint had left behind a ghostly image on the cloth. At that point they may have assumed a miracle, or they may have knowingly started up the money-spinning fraud. This particular image-forming process has been tested by scientists, with a high degree of success. Wdford (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

With blood? Master106 (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

About "undermining New Testament divine inspiration" from an earlier topic - I think I was referring to a cover-up about the Qumran community existing well into the 2nd Century A.D. as evidenced by a signed letter from Bar Kokhba in one of the caves with scrolls, coin evidence, and contradicting radio-carbon dates for scrolls that pertained especially to the community (rather than biblical scrolls that could have been from earlier libraries), as well as materials scrolls were wrapped in. That was to show that there have been differing results in other cases, when similarly controversial subjects are involved. 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:5CDE:A36:F6B2:CF36 (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The Consensus has spoken.

For one thing, we don't like all the so-called "evidence" in favor of the Shroud recording a "supernatural" event, such as the Resurrection of Christ. This is the 21st Century!

The other thing is this little matter of the carbon dating results - Deal with it!

All the other evidences contradict the carbon dating.

Besides, and I'll be quite frank here, even if the Shroud's image was "exceptionally formed", it wouldn't convince anybody of anything anyway, as we all make up our minds as to our own realities. Wikipedia's an academic encyclopedia, and if it has to lean toward current trends, then it is only validating consensus reality, which is the only stable reality.

Don't think we don't care as much as you do. Logically, based on known science, it simply isn't feasible for the Shroud's image to be miraculous.

You might as well expect us to continue either :

• Ridiculing and belittling you.
• Ignoring all this so-called evidence and labeling it as fringe (We don't care how "scientifically researched and academically published" you may deem it to be).
• Quote anyone who agrees with us (Even if you don't think it proves anything, it still shows we have our ranks across a wide spectrum).
• Persist until you give up and we get our way. Science is a very satisfying religion to defend, because we know we are supporting a tangible, comprehensive reality.

Well, how was that? Am I in the club? :)

No, I didn't convert, I just thought I'd show that I understand where many are coming from.

All I would really suggest is that instead of the fringe label for actual scientific research, it could be better designated as something like "Shroud research" or "Studies of the Shroud."

Heck, even untested theories, if not theoretically unsound, are not fringe, because they've been worked out logically, even without access to the Shroud itself (understanding, of course, the requirement of being published).

And then afterward, perceived fallacies are pointed out in other published material that can likewise be cited to correctly contradict. This is the Wikipedia way. Fear of Shroud research being presented in a neutral light is, by contrast, not. 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:5CDE:A36:F6B2:CF36 (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

We know that you have already looked up what Wikipedia means by the term "Fringe". However, for any new readers who might be seeing this, the details are explained at Fringe theories. Wdford (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the heading of this discussion - the "Shroudies" part is probably accurate, but the other 99.9% are not called "Doubties", we are called "Rational people who rely on science rather than wishful straw-clutching". Wdford (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not meant to be derogatory (in fact, I called myself a former Doubtie). A healthy amount of cynicism plays an important role in critical analysis that requires some speculative doubt while evaluating evidence.

However, there's no way that all Shroudies are "straw-clutchers", when there is a ton of scientific evidence for the Shroud. To throw out all scientific research that doesn't support one's views is absolutely unethical. But I've come to realize that there's people who just don't care and are oppositionally hardened in an unreasonable way. Some further choose to enforce their own perspectives and to silence all other perspectives, even if legit. This is a form of injustice.

By the way, I did show how Shroudies can also be wrongly combative, but someone misunderstood and removed the comment. I guess it was a little too convincing that it was a real comment!

The following explanation was appendaged to it, however:

"I thought it was only fair to expose misguided Shroudie zeal as well.

Earlier, I actually had to correct a fellow-Shroudie, who got my other topic rotten-tomato'd by getting so carried away on it.

Oh well, we live and learn. No hard feelings, everyone." 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:107C:EE43:C520:F672 (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Shroud-doubters might be interested in joining up with those who believe in God, yet who consider Shroud veneration as a form of idolatry.

Someone has been misrepresenting both Shroudies and Shroud-Doubters at the same time by edit-warring and being rude, while simultaneously being both pro-miracle and anti-Shroud.

They now have their own topic, under the title of: "Article protected"!

I've there proposed an anti-veneration addition to the article that draws a parallel with Nehushtan, a Mosaic artefact that was being worshipped in King Hezekiah's time. 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:107C:EE43:C520:F672 (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there anything in this thread that belongs on this page? Being about improving the article? Or is it pure WP:FORUM? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Make the article about half as long and remove all the special pleading? Guy (help! - typo?) 21:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

2024 X-ray-scattering research

This article (https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1938523/archaeology-breakthrough-jesus-burial-cloth-real) in a British tabloid talks about a recent X-ray-scattering study by Liberato De Caro claiming to substantiate a Jesus-era dating and mentioning that scientist's argument against the accuracy of the radiocarbon date. I couldn't find a link to Liberato De Caro's study in the article. Still, older work by De Caro was problematic (Cf., e.g., https://cosmosmagazine.com/people/ethics/journal-paper-claiming-shroud-of-turin-shows-trauma-is-retracted-after-a-year/, https://www.crosswalk.com/headlines/contributors/milton-quintanilla/scientific-x-ray-technique-dates-shroud-of-turin-to-around-the-time-of-jesus-death-resurrection.html and other articles to be found in Internet searches), and this August 2024 article might be actually referring to the 2022 article. The only recent work I found was Fanti, Giulio. "Analysis of ancient fabrics, example of the Holy Shroud in Turin." WORLD SCIENTIFIC NEWS 189 (2024): 236-257, which references De Caro's 2022 paper. Kdammers (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The article about the X-ray-scattering study by Liberato De Caro can be found here [3], and the actual 2022 scientific paper is here . We note that it was co-authored by Giulio Fanti, who has participated in a wide range of scientific papers involving new technologies which all “prove” that the Shroud is 2000 years old.

De Caro claims that his tests were done on a tiny fragment of thread about 0.5 mm × 1 mm. He claims that it was taken “in proximity of the 1988/radiocarbon area (corner of the TS corresponding to the feet area of the frontal image, near the so-called Raes sample).” He does NOT explain how he got hold of such a sample. The provenance of his fragment is thus totally obscure and unverified – which totally defeats the drawing of scientific conclusions.

De Caro admits that heating the linen would accelerate the apparent aging process, and he admits that the shroud has been present in serious fires. He attempts to overcome this by giving a long rambling justification of how the shroud must surely have been kept in a cool environment in Europe. He also explains that he tested the impact of heat on the aging of linen by putting modern linen in an oven at a temperature of 200 °C for half an hour. It is known that on at least one occasion, the shroud was baked in a heat great enough to melt its silver container. Silver melts at 960 °C, not at 200 °C. It is not known for how long the shroud was baked on each occasion, but we know that this temperature of 200 °C is definitely not scientifically representative. The shroud is also known to have been vigorously washed and even boiled in the past, which might have made some difference, but this is also ignored by De Caro. He also makes no effort to investigate whether modern linen reacts the same to heat as ancient linen or medieval linen.

There are various concerns about using an untested “novel” technique which nobody else has ever used or tested, far less verified. The lack of verified provenance of the sample is a massive problem, which seriously undermines this “test”. The fact that the team never properly tested the impact of heat on the threads, again seriously undermines this “test”. The C14 dating still stands unchallenged.

Wdford (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm seeing coverage in places like Newsweek (link), which focuses on the caveats and still declares "While some studies have come to the conclusion that the artifact might be genuine, the scientific consensus leans toward the Shroud being a medieval artifact and a forgery." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Article protected

I've fullprotected the article for 10 days because of the content dispute and rampant edit warring. (And I've also blocked the completely disruptive user - account and IP, obviously one person - who keeps quoting Exodus 20:4-6.) Please discuss here on talk and try to reach consensus. If the dispute has been resolved before the 10 days are up, you're welcome to notify me and I'll unprotect. Bishonen | tålk 01:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC).

This person has an issue with the Shroud being used as a form of idolatry and considers Shroudies "idolators."

The passage from Exodus that you say he or she is quoting, involves the command not to worship idols.

If he/she wants to contribute at some time in the future:

I likewise encourage you to discuss your proposed edits here. A mention of the example of Nehushtan might actually be quite interesting and relevant to the article, as I pointed out to you earlier. There are, indeed, many people who highly venerate the Shroud itself, rather than, for example, the mystery of God behind an unexplainable origin of the image.

(In the Bible, Nehushtan was a Mosaic artefact that King Hezekiah destroyed because the people were venerating it). 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:107C:EE43:C520:F672 (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

"to a 95% confidence level"

"In 1988, radiocarbon dating by three different laboratories established that the shroud's linen material was produced between the years 1260 and 1390 (to a 95% confidence level), which corresponds with its first documented appearance in 1354. "

As a chartered statistician, I don't like the way this has been phrased as "(to a 95% confidence level"). The usual way of describing this would be to say "(95% confidence interval"). The current wording risks confusion with the 5% significance level, which is often erroneously described as the "95% significance level". Significance levels are used in (Fisher-style) significance tests and (Neyman-Pearson style) hypothesis tests. What we are talking about here is a confidence interval, not a test. The link takes you (correctly) a page about confidence intervals.

Many researchers have confused ideas about the related concepts of significance levels and confidence intervals and it would be better to use less confusing language.

Blaise Blaise (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we can summarize better with words like "established that the shroud's linen material was produced in the late middle ages, which corresponds with its first documented appearance in 1354" ? The (im)precise dates are not that relevant. Bon courage (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that would also avoid misunderstandings like "it is 5% likely that the Shroud is 2000 years old", which I bet some people will have. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Suggested addition on 2024 study

Suggested addition, since a user full-protected the article. Under the current paragraph in the subsection "Material historical analysis: Historical fabrics" I suggest adding the following, cited to the peer-reviewed journal:

In 2024, a team of Italian researchers used wide-angle X-ray scattering (WAXS) to date a linen sample from the Turin Shroud (TS) to approximately 2,000 years ago. The authors of the paper in Heritage wrote: "In particular, the WAXS analysis presented here, for the natural aging of the cellulose in the linen of a TS sample, allows us to conclude that it is very probable that the TS is a relic of about 20 centuries old, even if we only have European historical documentation for the last seven centuries." They did suggest further study, noting that: "Since the 14C dating does not agree with our results, or with the dating obtained by other works... a more accurate and systematic X-ray investigation of more samples taken from the TS fabric would be mandatory to confirm the conclusions of our study."

References

Simple, in the proper spot in the article, one citation, cited to a journal (not a sensationalist news-piece), scientific conclusion and scientific hedging of bets and hope for more research. What do you think? TuckerResearch (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Already discussed ad nauseam. Bon courage (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I did just see: WP:MDPI, but no need to be prickly and throw out a not-showing good-faith and childish "ad nauseam." TuckerResearch (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

And, regardless, in sinceritate, the article should mention this (whether you call it research or "research") somewhere, even if in the "fringe" section, as it has now made the round in news stories around the globe. TuckerResearch (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm sure you appreciate that we should not add every desperate attempt by Fanti as though it is reliable. Please see the actual scientific paper here [4]. Then, please read the summary of the problems with this paper at the end of the "2024 X-ray-scattering research" section above. Then please suggest how we should word this issue accurately, in a manner that ensures that the readers of the article get a proper appreciation of this latest fringe attempt to "prove" that the Shroud is 2000 years old. Wdford (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure why this is proposed to be described as 2024 work when it was submitted for publication in 2022. It's just the same thing already discussed. In general, this stuff is dealt with at Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin, when rational sources deal with it. Has that even happened with this latest effort? Bon courage (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the study is worth a mention. I believe it should be added so that people who come across the article can form their own conclusions. Allow a more neutral point of view to the study just saying the general claims of the study. As editors we should not allow our pre-conceived biases to overtake us. I am looking at you atheist editors trying to prevent the study from being on the page. Master106 (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant to reflect accepted knowledge, not just put (fringe) stuff on the table and walk away leaving people to decide. This is a weak primary source in a junk journal, and WP:FRINGESUBJECTS is the non-negotiable policy on how this kind of stuff must be dealt with. Bon courage (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a fringe subject, this was a study. Master106 (talk) 07:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Also I want to add, Wikipedia is meant for people to form their own conclusions based on information provided in articles, not necessarily accepted knowledge. This is what Jimbo Wales intended when he founded the website and it is still a factor to this day. Master106 (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not deal in mere "information". It is a tertiary source summarizing accepted knowledge on topics (i.e. WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC in nature). The idea that the Turin Shroud is anything other than from the Middle Ages is fringe. Bon courage (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between an Encyclopedia vs a Blog. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Anybody who wants to pile up information of dubious reliability and leave people to form their own conclusions, is free to start up a blog. There are many blogs out there already, but the internet always has room for one more. Wdford (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

It is important for Wikipedia to get the facts down. If there is a prominent study, it deserves a mention. I am not suggesting to claim it is real or fake. I am suggesting to mention the study, ignore any pre-conceived biases because I think avoiding the study and not editing it in is not a neutral point of view. Master106 (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

We do not edit Wikipedia based on bias. To say "The idea that the Turin Shroud is anything other than from the Middle Ages is fringe" is inherently biased. Master106 (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

We edit Wikipedia based on reliable sources. The C14 dating methodology used on the shroud sample has been scrutinised by a number of C14 experts, and has been verified. The sampling used in the C14 dating has been scrutinised by a range of experts, and has been verified. The arguments against the C14 dating have all been debunked by experts, using actual shroud evidence. On the other hand, yet another team which includes Fanti, has invented yet another dating technology that nobody else has ever tested, and this new and untested dating method has (big surprise) found the shroud to be 2000 years old, provided that you assume a range of conditions which are themselves untested. When a completely untested methodology, examining a sample of unknown provenance, gives a different outcome to a well-tested methodology which examined an actual sample from the shroud under full scientific conditions, then the untested dating method is clearly unreliable, and the outcome thereof is fringe. It ain't rocket science. Wdford (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't you think if the shroud was actually from around 2000 years ago, would not it be found to be from 2000 years ago? Master106 (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I have another question, if the shroud was carbon dated again in the future and the shroud is found to be from 2000 years ago, would you be willing to put that on the Wikipedia page? Because for some reason, I presume you might call that fringe and be against putting the results on the Wikipedia page. Master106 (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Just follow the WP:BESTSOURCES. To overturn how scientific understanding is reported, good ones are needed. Bon courage (talk) 07:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not only carbon-dating. There are multiple lines of evidence showing it wasn't Jesus' burial shroud, or any real person's burial shroud. Some of those lines don't require much scientific learning, just a basic knowledge of geometry. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The C14 dating is the only scientific dating done so far, using a verified scientific process. Some other people have invented new tests, but these have not been verified as valid or accurate, so in a comparison which produces conflicting dates, the verified scientific process wins. If the shroud was carbon-dated again today, in a scientifically valid process using verified shroud samples etc, and it produced dates of 2000 years, then everyone would accept it. However people using unverified dating processes on crumbling fragments which might not even be genuine shroud material, cannot be taken seriously. PS: blood is easy to add afterwards - perhaps even long afterwards. Crusader knights had ready access to human blood. Wdford (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The face of Jesus is European

so now that the face of Jesus is reconstructed as European, Greek Like, what will pseudo scientists say about him being middle eastern 2600:1004:B0A7:A529:0:27:7522:E201 (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

That he was middle-eastern. By definition. Also, not the first flying clue what you are on about regarding a "reconstruction." Did they find remains and I missed it? Dumuzid (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 August 2024

The article says, under Bloodstains, that Walter McCrone found the "bloodstains" contained iron oxide, which is true, but more importantly he found that they contained mercuric sulphide or vermilion, a pigment commonly used to depict blood by medieval artists. See p129 of McCrone's 1997 book 'Judgement day for the Turin Shroud'. Krebiozen (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Please state the exact wording of this sentence that you propose — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Clarification needed.

The article's last line, "Even if ultraviolet radiation were proven to have formed the image, it cannot be proven that it wasn't natural, that of the sun, applied to the prepared cloth unevenly to create the image." does not make sense as to what its saying. It could use rephrasing according to the source(A more reliable source if possible) or a WP:CLARIFY tag. StarkReport (talk) 05:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have time to sift through all the so-called sources listed on this cited blog, but as I recall there has been a general suggestion that the image was formed by "fading" as the natural sunlight dehydrated the linen over time - as happens to many coloured fabrics even today. One scientist was suggesting that a glass window was painted and then laid on a strip of linen to dry, and was left there for a few weeks/months in the sun to dry our properly before the window was installed somewhere. Clear glass would let the UV through to fade the fabric, but the different types and thicknesses of paint on the glass blocked the UV selectively and caused the image to form over time. After the painted window was dry and was removed, the artist or another worker discovered that an image had accidentally formed on the linen drop-cloth as well, and somebody thought of a way to make money out of it. As the sun moved across the sky each day, the angle of incidence of the UV changed, and the resultant variable refraction caused the so-called "3D" effect which becomes visible if you run the image through a machine which is designed to produce 3D effects out of flat grey-scale images. Here is a rough idea of the fading mechanism, [5] but I cannot remember off-hand which scientists made this link to the Shroud. Perhaps the editor who added this paragraph to the article originally can remember the name of that scientist? Wdford (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)