Shroud of Turin can’t be a fake, researchers say: Scientists unable to replicate cloth’s

NY Daily News ^ | Dec. 22, 2011 | Rheana Murray

[Free ThinkerNY]

The Shroud of Turin is very likely not the product of Medieval fakery, say Italian researchers who used modern technology to test the holy cloth’s authenticity.

Over five years of work, the scientists blasted modern linen with ultraviolet light and examined X-rays of the fabric, attempting to replicate the stunning Christ-like image exhibited in the Shroud.

The findings, released in November by Italy’s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Development, showed they “achieved a very superficial, Shroud-like coloration of linen yarns,” according to a report on msnbc.com.

It fell way short of the characteristics of the real Shroud, however. They concluded therefore that Jesus’s supposed burial cloth could not have been doctored in Medieval times, as has been theorized during past studies, some of which relied on radiocarbon dating of fiber samples.

“We have shown that the most advanced technology available today is unable to replicate all the characteristics of the Shroud image,” lead researcher Paolo Di Lazzaro told msnbc.com in an email.

“As a consequence, we may argue it appears unlikely a forger may have done this image with technologies available in the Middle Ages or earlier.

[RummyChick]

ahh..maybe this explains why I can’t find video by Vincent...

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Worlds-Oldest-Photograph-First-Photograph-Ever-Taken-Publication-Rights-/230684597269

[RummyChick]

"On examining the cloth, Professor L. Portoghesi, a specialist in first-century fabrics, determined that the material is byssus – the most expensive material of ancient times. Dr Chiara Vigo, the world’s leading expert in byssus linens, corroborates Portoghesi’s finding."

http://www.loamagazine.org/nr/the_main_topic/the_greatest_miracle_in.html

But is that sentence factual??? Here is a translation of the interview:

http://holyfaceofmanoppello.blogspot.com/2008/06/interview-with-chiara-vigo-expert.html

[RummyChick]

chiara viago television interview
http://en.gloria.tv/?media=122182

small clip.might be more in the internet.

So the question is...could Veronica’s veil be a painting done on Byssus.

If not scientifically possible, then it doesn’t matter if Durer did a transparent painting of Jesus or Raphael or of himself. This wouldn’t be it.

[RummyChick]

Badde does say that experts say that it is not Veronica’s Veil but a burial cloth. This might explain how a costly fabric got involved with the “miracle”

Byssus can be dyed. Can you use watercolors on it?

But here is an interesting point to me.

How long has that relic been in sunlight?

If it is a painting it is not a very good one. Weren’t Raphael and Durer better painters than that??

Here is a claim that the images are NOT the same on both sides

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/jaworski.pdf

[RummyChick]

My cursory research, which is FAR LESS than yours, does not back up what you claim.

I find that Durer sent a transparent painting to Raphael. I have seen it described as fine silk , cambric, and byssus. I have seen references that byssus back then could have had a more generic meaning than it does today. Thus, the different words used by Vasari to describe the painting don’t conflict.

It was left to Guilio Romano. Vasari saw it in Mantua. Romano placed it at the Palace at Mantua. In exchange, Durer got nude drawings for the Battle of Ostia.

Raphael wanted to depict Durer in a Stanza.

This is not to say that Raphael isn’t reponsible for the Veronica’s Veil or that someone else isn’t reponsible.

But it is a leap to say Vasari says Raphael sent a transparent painting.

I would be very interested to see where you got your info.

[Oatka]

> No, but I think there are several pieces of toast you can compare it to. ;-)

Thank you. SO many gullible people - as this thread shows.

[grey_whiskers]

Yes, those who listen to trolls such as yourself.

You show up to defile every Shroud thread with your rantings.

Fie upon thee, miscreant.

[Swordmaker]

I still don’t have a definitive answer as to whether the expert on byssus said this veil was made of byssus or cambria.

What exactly did she say?

In regards to the transparent paintings...are you sure that Raphael sent a transparent painting?

I do not know what she really said. It does not matter.

I AM certain that Raphael sent a transparent self-portrait to Albrecht Dürer in 1508 because I have read the English translation of the letter exchanged between the two men discussing their techniques and the exchange of paintings. Raphael discusses using both cambric and Byssus cloth in his attempts but does not say which cloth the painting he sent to Dürer is done on.

However, for this to be Jesus has other problems. The photomicrographs taken of the Manoppello veil clearly show that the image is made of PIGMENTS! It has distinct pigments clinging to the fibers wherever there is image. Ergo, it is not miraculously created by Jesus pressing his face to a veil on the Via Delarosa. Secondly, the wounds on Jesus face, incurred before making the trek to Golgotha, are entirely missing, as are the blood stains from the crown of thorns. Finally, image on the Manoppello veil sports a young man's wispy beard and no mustache. The man on the Shroud, has a full beard and a full mustache. There is no comparison. Dr. Alan Whanger applied his comparison system on exact life size images of the Manoppello veil and Shroud images, and found only seven points of congruence... The same you'd find on a photo of any male or female face. But when he did the same with an equalized sized self-portrait of Rapf Hazel, there were over sixty points of congruence. Not enough for certainty, but enough to exclude the man on the shroud as being the same face!

If the material is cambric, it does indeed change the dynamic because cambric is a cloth that was only developed in the fifteenth century and certainly was not available to have been present on the Via Delarosa.

[Swordmaker]

Damn auto correction. Rapf hazel is Raphael.

[Swordmaker]

I find that Durer sent a transparent painting to Raphael. I have seen it described as fine silk , cambric, and byssus. I have seen references that byssus back then could have had a more generic meaning than it does today. Thus, the different words used by Vasari to describe the painting don’t conflict.

Those who knew cloth would not have used the terms interchangeably. The costs were considerably different. Byssus today is over a $1000 a square foot! It was 100 times more costly than silk in medieval times, so a knowledgeable person would not confabulate silk, cambria, and Byssus! Byssus was essentially reserved for royalty.

The only source we have for the inability for paint to stick to Byssus, is the modern weaver lady... And frankly I doubt her. Raphael wrote about getting his best result on Byssus. . . with paint. If you can dye it, you can paint it. There is nothing magical about Byssus that would make it shed paint any more than any other organic substance. One can paint a pearl... One reason that few examples of Byssus cloth survive is that moths love to eat it! It is very fragile.

when I was researching the Manoppello Veronica in 2006, my recollection is that the Raphael/Dürer letters were quoted in an art book published in 1936 or so. . . I cannot comment on the accuracy of the translations as I have no expertise on sixteenth century German. I relied on the translations. However the art book was not discussing anything about Veronica's or the Manoppello veil, just the unique attempt at transparent art the two famous artists were attempting, with varying degrees of success. Raphael was not too pleased with the difficulty of working on the diaphonous cloth and it's tendency to stretch, making accuracy difficult. The translations had been actually done in he nineteenth century, IIRC.

Some people think the Manoppello veil is Dürer's self-portrait... But it just doesn't match his looks. Here is his own self-portrait from 1500:

Albrecht Dürer c. 1500

You can see his hair, beard, and mustache are much more pronounced than the image on the Manoppello image. He just does not look like it.

[Oatka]

Yes, those who listen to trolls such as yourself.
Grey_whiskers = 2008
oatka = 1999
Troll! Egad! Exposed at last!

You show up to defile every Shroud thread with your rantings.
Not every one. Defiling is SO draining. :-)

Fie upon thee, miscreant.
The dreaded Fie! Argh! Argh! Writhing in pain. (About as effective as pro-Shroud arguments)

[central_va]

If someone is a fan of the Shroud of Turin can you call them a “Shroudie”? Just askin’.

[RummyChick]

There are a lot of art historians who have discussed the exchange but so far I have found none that say raphael sent him a transparent painting.
The Durer painting in question is long gone but some examples of his work using the same method are still around
Moritz Thausing says the technique was often used by Durer on page 91 of his book and can been seen on what I think are these









These are examples of the technique. None of these appear to be done on what we now call byssus - or the fabric of Veronica's veil. It does not stand to reason to me that a transparent fabric so costly that basically only royalty could afford it would be sent to Durer.

I saw one historian claim that what was sent to Durer was actually drawings done by his student Romano. Giulio did complete unfinished works when Raphael died. One of the drawings sent to Durer ended up in the hands of Archduke Charles in Vienna.

As you can see in this translation:

http://books.google.com/books?id=f3xKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=vasari+durer+transparent+painting&source=bl&ots=tZeM59MMND&sig=R-sI1_xMsVBpTuqsN-A69KH3grk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eT33TpWwM4XqgAetyoGGAg&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=vasari%20durer%20transparent%20painting&f=false

Vasari called the fabric "exceedingly fine linen." Of course, it is a translation. But if you look at the other paintings using the same method that exist today - they do not look like byssus.

I am Still not discounting that it could have been done by Raphael or someone else . I just have doubts that it is the painting sent to Durer.

[RummyChick]

I found this video of Vigo talking about byssus. It is in Italian
http://www.comune.santantioco.ca.it/cms/il-bisso.html

If the questioned Veil is not real I am more inclined to think this was commissioned in secret by the Pope or some other person with money to help perpetuate the story and then it fell into the hands of the church in this small town rather than it is a costly fabric sent to Durer.

I do think it is significant that the Pope went to view it and prayed before it. Don’t know what it means but I think it is significant.

[RummyChick]

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=3776122&postcount=9

Interesting post about the use of the word Byssus.

[RummyChick]

Chemical analysis of byssal threads

http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/JaworskiWeb.pdf

As noted , not all researchers agree about the findings of pigments on the veil. It references Fanti who thinks it is linen. I have seen in my research that the term byssus was once known to be used for linen according to Websters, Oxford, etc.

[RummyChick]

and I still have no answer as to why the image on the veil is not a true mirror - for example - the lock of hair.

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/jaworski.pdf

Does that make it more or less likely that it is a painting? The paper theorizes that it makes it less likely to be a painting.

[Swordmaker]

As I stated, the translated letter written by Raphael stated he was experimenting on both Cambric and Byssus... but he did not state what the self-portrait he was forwarding to Dürer was on... just that it was one of his transparent efforts. Whether this one is his or not is irrelevant. The number of congruencies is. There are only the number of congruencies one gets with ANY face when compared, male or female, with the Shroud face image IS. The SIZES are not even comparable. The only researcher who claimed it is the same as the Shroud is a pious nun who compared PHOTOGRAPHS of both... using a ruler and made no attempt to assure that both photographs were true life-size representations of the originals. When this is done, they do not match.

As I pointed out, the image on the Shroud has a full mustache and beard, the image on the Manoppello veil has a wispy mustache only at the corners of the mouth and a wispy beard... the beard of a younger man. Are you seriously proposing that Jesus, stopped for shave on the Via Delarosa, then grew a full beard and mustache after making the Veronica before being buried in the tomb? That is an absurd proposition to make. Either the Shroud image with its full beard is wrong or the Manoppello veil is NOT an image of Christ on the way to the cross. It can't be both.

AND, as I have pointed out multiple times, the pigments on the Manoppello veil are EASILY seen on microphotographs where ever there is image. It is a painting. Painted by whom is irrelevant.

I think, not believe, because of the over 60 congruencies with the face of Raphael, fewer than 40 with Dürer's face, and only six - seven with the Shroud's, that it is most likely the self portrait that Raphael sent to Dürer that we know of from the letters I read, in which he spoke of painting on either Byssus or cambric. That remains up in the air... to be determined when the Church authorities allow it to be dismounted from the double-sided glass and examined properly.

[grey_whiskers]

I'm not class of 2008, but 2004, btw.

Now begone, or I shall be forced to taunt you again!

Merry Christmas, (check one)
() atheist
() Protty
() ignorant skeptic-out-of-habit

Cheers!

[RummyChick]

You are missing a very important fact.

The imprint on the shroud is discussed by scientists as being formed in certain ways (light as he was rising, etc). These ways would not have caused the imprint for a brief moment on a veil of Veronica.

Therefore, whatever imprint, should it have been of Jesus - would be a intervention of God. Who is to say it has to be exact????????????????????????????????????????

There are similarities that go above matching just any man INCLUDING Raphael. Show me a self portrait of Raphael with a forked beard or even a thin wispy mustache.

Tell me why the images on the Manoppello veil do not mirror each other on each side - such as the lock of hair?

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/jaworski.pdf

I cannot find a single reference about a letter that Raphael wrote saying he was doing a self-portrait transparent painting on Byssus as the term is used today or cambric. Many many art historians have written about Raphael. The only reference you remember is from a book in 1936. Why does no one else reference this exchange of letters about the technique- not even the book by his student Romano????

I can imagine Raphael getting a painting from Durer done just as the examples I have shown that are still in museums.They don’t look like the Veil. I can also imagine Raphael being so impressed with it that he attempted the technique himself. . I cannot imagine Raphael experimenting on a piece of cloth so rare that it was reserved for royalty and sending it to Durer. Who would have given him such a thing just to experiment on a self portrait?? The Catholic Church, perhaps. But perhaps he experimented on the more generic term used for byssus which meant a fine cloth.

That is still not to say that someone didn’t paint this on byssus as the term is used today but it is important to be as accurate as possible. I can’t imagine a self-portrait on a cloth that is as expensive as you say being sent to Durer. And I sure can’t find a forked beard on Raphael. Btw, he was a better painter that what is on the Veil.

As for pigment, again NOT EVERY RESEARCHER AGREES ABOUT THE PIGMENT...including the chemical analysis that I posted that was one on byssal strands.

I can’t find a single portrait of Raphael that has that wisp of hair at the top. Interesting enough, Durer looking like Jesus self portrait does have a wisp at the hair line.