[TheThirdRuffian]

“If true - using technology of today - 2000 years more advanced that what was available.”

Am I the only one who reads the article:

“Garlaschelli reproduced the full-sized shroud using materials and techniques that were available in the middle ages.”

“They placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A mask was used for the face. The pigment was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it, a process which removed it from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud. He believes the pigment on the original Shroud faded naturally over the centuries.”

[Houghton M.]

“left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud.”

Operative word: “similar.”

[Sudetenland]

Am I the only one who reads the article:

Most probably. There are a whole lot of people who assume they know what an article says and make their comments accordingly.

I used to believe that my fellow conservatives were thoughtful, rational, serious minded people...spending time on FR has thoroughly disabused me of that belief.

Buckley, Goldwater, Reagan conservatives seem to be in short supply these days.

[Houghton M.]

“A mask was used for the face.”

I see. So they “reproduced” the Shroud but just left out a little detail.

The Face. One of the most significant things about the Shroud is the way the image reproduces a human body with “3-D” modeling. A cloth draped over a pigment-covered cadaver won’t produce a properly 3-D set of highlights and valleys. The face is one of the crucial areas for assessing this modeling.

They just left it out. To keep the paint and acid out of the volunteer’s eyes? The scientists are compassionate folks. I suppose they’d not have gotten many volunteers if they had asked for someone to volunteer to be crucified.

[cydcharisse]

They could read it a thousand times. If they don’t wish to see it, they won’t.
BTW they won’t see your reply, either.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I've got no dog in this fight, since the authenticity of this particular artifact is not, and has never been, an article of faith. It's a little odd, though, that the researcher doesn't even advert to the significance of a perfectly accurate Carbon-14 test being performed on an unrepresentative sample: a medieval cotton patch which was added to a more-ancient linen cloth.

Surely he was aware of this?

For your further research convenience: http://tinyurl.com/turinlinen.

[Swordmaker]

“They placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A mask was used for the face. The pigment was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it, a process which removed it from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud. He believes the pigment on the original Shroud faded naturally over the centuries.”

We know what the image is made of and there are no pigments involved. The Shroud has been examined with very sophisticated instruments and all of them have failed to find any pigments on the Shroud that correspond to the location of the image.

The copy made by Garlaschelli apparently approximates only ONE of the multitude of characteristics of the Shroud... the evanescent image. This has been done before... and none of the techniques have yet met all of the criteria for duplicating the Shroud... one of which is the lack of pigments down to the electron microscope level.

[Lee'sGhost]

Not to mention the math problem. If it was something that was faked in medieval times the technology would only be 800 years old.

I hope the shroud is real, but I’m just saying....