![]() ![]() ![]() The discoloration that forms the image appears only on the very top one or two fibers of thread, not even the whole thread (as thread is made of many tiny fibers twisted together), and only penetrates 0.2 microns into the 15-20 micron-diameter fibers-yet it discolors 360 degrees around those fibers. ![]() There’s simply no method known to medieval man or even to modern man to create an image with the amazing properties the Shroud has. No pigment, no chemicals, no brush strokes, no clumping of fibers or threads, no cracking of the image along fold lines are present, so the image is not created by any paint, stain, dye, or chemical treatment.This dating seemed to end the question of authenticity, but the accuracy of the testing has come into question for numerous scientific reasons, and today many scientists consider it flawed.įurther undermining the accuracy of the C 14 dating is the overwhelming body of evidence strongly pointing to the Shroud’s authenticity. Let’s acknowledge right from the beginning “the elephant in the room”-the 1988 Carbon 14 test that dated the Shroud to around 1300 AD. And the overwhelming majority of the evidence falls in favor of it being the authentic burial cloth of a crucified man who happened to experience the same tortures Jesus endured, as described in the Gospels. While many people claim it is a forgery, none of these skeptics seems to be able to explain how it was done. Hundreds of thousands of hours have been spent on scientific examination of the Shroud of Turin in an attempt to explain its enigmatic markings. I hope you’ll read what I’ve discovered prayerfully and meditatively, and allow yourself, too, to be deeply moved. I must tell you, my research affected me profoundly, and I don’t think I’ll be able to look at a crucifix casually ever again. The relief you see above is the 3D information for the face of the man in the Shroud.Having recently finished an article on the Eucharistic Miracles proven by science, I was curious to learn more about the scientific evidence regarding the Shroud of Turin, believed since ancient times to be the actual linens used in Jesus’ burial (John 19:39-40). This is true for both the frontal and dorsal images. What the Shroud mysteriously does seem to retain is information about the distance the cloth was from parts of the body it rested on as well as parts of the body it was not in direct contact with. The Shroud of Turin does not retain any of that "draping cloth shape" either. When you remove the cloth from the body, it straightens out and doesn't retain any of that 3D body shape information. However, if you drape it over a body, it will assume the approximate shape of that body. The Shroud is somehow in between a picture and a statue.Ī cloth, like the Shroud, is a 2D object because it's flat. Consider the Mona Lisa, for example. No matter how you move when looking at her, you'll never see her profile or the back of her head.Ī sculpture is different. With a sculpture you can move around and see it from all sides - it has 3D information. That information is 2D because it's flat. In simplest terms, one can consider a painting or a photograph a 2D image which gives 2D information about its subject matter. Whether the Shroud proves to be 1st century or medieval, this kind of information is unexpected in an ancient linen.īut what is the difference between 3D and 2D information? Encoded on the fibrils of the cloth is what appears to be 3D information about the shape of the body it may have enveloped. There is a unique property of the Shroud of Turin which caught the attention of 3D computer graphics artist Ray Downing. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |