Da Vinci - Creator of Turin Shroud?

[Vir Triumphalis]

I just watched History Channel and one of the shows was that Lilian Schwartz claims that Leonardo da Vinci created the Shroud of Turin. The Shroud of Turin is clearly not form Jesus' time because the cloth dates in the middle ages. She has lots of evidence to prove that the face on the cloth is the face of Da Vinci

your opinions?

[Tankbuster]

That'll be very difficult.
It's true that the Shroud of Turin is a Medieval fake (if you're in doubt you can read this great discussion about it): we have three independent C14 estimations that place its origin in the Thirteenth or Fourteenth Century. That is consistent with the first mentions of the Shroud of Turin, namely some written documents from the Fourteenth Century.

And that's the massive problem with the thesis you proposed: the Shroud of Turin was first displayed in Lirey, France, in 1357, which would make it a bit difficult for someone who wasn't born until 1452 to have had anything to do with its creation.
I know Leonardo was a great artist, but I'm pretty sure not even he could create artifacts several decades before he was born.

On top of that the Church not only declared the Shroud a fake when it first appeared but located the guy who painted it. It suddenly aqppeared in the possession of the De Charnay family in France in the Fourteenth Century and was exhibited in their chapel at around the time the De Charnays were in a lot of debt and when lots of pilgrims bestowing gift on their chapel were rather useful to them. The local bishop was suspicious of this supposedly genuine Shroud of Christ suddenly popping up out of nowhere and made some inquiries. He found it was a fake and found the guy who had been paid to produce it, so he ordered the De Charnays to stop displaying it.
So in other words, those are more 14th century documents stating not only that the Shroud existed back then, but that a local bishop actually found the man responsible for creating this fake. Unless this man was da Vinci who had used some kind of friggin' self-created time machine, that's another giant nail in the coffin of that thesis.

In short, the thesis in that show you watched is completely wrong. Which is what you mostly get on the History Channel

[Vir Triumphalis]

That'll be very difficult.
It's true that the Shroud of Turin is a Medieval fake (if you're in doubt you can read this great discussion about it): we have three independent C14 estimations that place its origin in the Thirteenth or Fourteenth Century. That is consistent with the first mentions of the Shroud of Turin, namely some written documents from the Fourteenth Century.

And that's the massive problem with the thesis you proposed: the Shroud of Turin first appears in the 1300's, yet Leonardo da Vinci was born in 1452.
I know Leonardo was a great artist, but I'm pretty sure not even he could create artifacts several decades before he was born.

On top of that the Church not only declared the Shroud a fake when it first appeared but located the guy who painted it. It suddenly aqppeared in the possession of the De Charnay family in France in the Fourteenth Century and was exhibited in their chapel at around the time the De Charnays were in a lot of debt and when lots of pilgrims bestowing gift on their chapel were rather useful to them. The local bishop was suspicious of this supposedly genuine Shroud of Christ suddenly popping up out of nowhere and made some inquiries. He found it was a fake and found the guy who had been paid to produce it, so he ordered the De Charnays to stop displaying it.
So in other words, those are more 14th century documents stating not only that the Shroud existed back then, but that a local bishop actually found the man responsible for creating this fake. Unless this man was da Vinci who had used some kind of friggin' self-created time machine, that's another giant nail in the coffin of that thesis.

In short, the thesis in that show you watched is completely wrong. Which is what you mostly get on the History Channel

If we rely on historical records that the shroud did exist on 1353-1357 and owned by the De Charnays, then your post would be accurate. But there is a theory that the shroud by the De Charnays during 1353-1357 with the shroud in Turin is still under debate because they claim that the the shroud was created a century after the first recorded date. So that means there must be 2 shrouds. Still the history of the shroud is debated by most historians.

History Channel is very misleading but in some aspects some of it are true.

[Tankbuster]

If we rely on historical records that the shroud did exist on 1353-1357 and owned by the De Charnays, then your post would be accurate.

Er, yup.

But there is a theory that the shroud by the De Charnays during 1353-1357 with the shroud in Turin is still under debate because they claim that the the shroud was created a century after the first recorded date. So that means there must be 2 shrouds. Still the history of the shroud is debated by most historians.

The ownership and location of the Shroud from at least 1418 to the fire of 1532 is actually well documented, largely because the canons of Lirey contested its ownership legally with the family that had married into the De Charnys right up until 1464. Leonardo was in Milan from 1482-1499. We have clear documentation that the Shroud was exhibited in various cities between 1473 and 1502, travelling with the Savoys across their domains. There is zero evidence that the Shroud somehow 'changed' in this period or that the early Sixteenth Century Shroud was different in any way to the one exhibited in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries.
So again, no points for the da Vinci theory: we know the history of the Shroud from several decades before Leanorda da Vinci was born to several decades after he died. There is absolutely no evidence that a second shroud was created druing this time.

The only people who have tried to propose that Leonardo had anything to do with the Shroud are a pair of amateur kooks called Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince - the same nutjobs who wrote The Templar Revelation, one of the crackpot New Age conspiracy theories which Dan Brown uses as the basis for his silly pseudo-historical pulp thriller, The Da Vinci Code. Pickett and Prince's books belong on the same shelf as Dan Brown or could, perhaps, be used as a substitute for toilet paper in an emergency.

History Channel is very misleading but in some aspects some of it are true.

Sure, but in this case they're proposing an idea that has absolutely no credibility whatsoever among historians.

Pickett and Prince are great at making wildly acrobatic leaps of logic, hypothesis and supposition, building more hypothesis and supposition on this and then repeating this process again, and again and again, like a tottering house of cards. As fantasy writing, their books are immensely amusing. As history, they are best used, as I suggested, for emergency toilet paper.

[Vir Triumphalis]

With the history of the shroud being well documented from 1418 -1532 your right. Even if Da Vinci did create the shroud it would be to late because the other shroud would have been more popular to most people therefore taking Da Vinci out of the equation( not really equation but out of the possible creator of the shroyd), right?

[Tankbuster]

Indeed. There's really no reason why Da Vinci would have wanted to create a second Shroud of Turin...

And considering that we don't have any evidence at all that he did in fact work on one, or had completed one, or had sold one, we can pretty conclusively that he probably never had anything to do with it at all.

Until those two kooks Pickett and Prince imagined it during another episode of pseudo-historical what-if, that is

[Phier]

Shockingly there were more artists than Da Vinci out there. I think in typical over analysis fashion people are making the shroud out to be more than it is, and as such assume only a truly great mind could have created it.

[Dr. Croccer]

No. There's a lot of evidence that suggests that knowledge of the Shroud existed decades before Da Vinci was born. The Shroud itself reveals that it wasn't ''painted on'' either.

Whether it is real or not is still very debatable. I'm personally undecided. It's extremely doubtful that it's a shroud of Jesus. How the image was pressed onto the shroud, and how the shroud was recovered are puzzling questions. Then again, I'm unconvinced by the skeptics as well. Their entire theory relies on the assumption that the Shroud was a forgery made during the 14th century or earlier. The theories range from someone literaly crucifying someone to using a complex form of camera obscura. All of which are extremely unrealistic. They rely far too much on completely unrealistic assumptions. Apart from having an extensive knowledge of the Bible (obviously), the forgerer in question would have to have had a grasp of physics, anatomy, Roman weaponry (the bloodmarks on the shroud match that of a Roman flagrum, which was totally unlike Medieval, northern European whips), Levantine pottery and traditions (the waterstains on the cloud are comparable to those a similair-sized cloth would have if folded inside a typical first century middle-eastern amphora with a little bit of water at the bottom), old middle-eastern spices, Levantine weaving methods, optics, etc, that pretty much no-one had at the time, or even till centuries later, as well as very wealthy, as And even that might not even be possible, as some evidence indicates that the Templars brought the shroud with them during the 13th century, which clearly must mean that it was a 13th century forgery, which is even more unlikely.

The carbon dating has come under criticism from many respected scientists, and even one of the original team IIRC. The argument runs that the piece used in the carbon dating was one of the patches that was added after the shroud was burnt during a church fire during the 14th century (IIRC).

Again, I'm neutral on the subject. Both sides are incredibly unconvincing.

[Elfdude]

*snip*

Lol.

I wasn't aware anyone believed such a contrived explanation. As phier said there's basic things we do know about the shroud that virtually guarantee at the very least it's not Jesuit's. Once you divorce the myth from the shroud it's no longer become a holy relic and it's much easier to believe that it was 14th-15th century hoax.

Also no, there's documentation of where they cut the carbon dated cloth from. You can watch them actually cut their inch and a half square and it was not from a patch or anything of the sort, the patches were compared just in case as well.

[Phier]

The cloth itself is a three to one twill, striped in the herringbone pattern. How very nice that they buried Jesus after his crucifixion with a fabric wave not used at the time. Not bad for a guy executed in the most humiliating style of the day.

[Dr. Croccer]

I wasn't aware anyone believed such a contrived explanation

If it's made before the 14th century and after the 13th century then that means it's a hoax. A hoax for which there is no real conclusive evidence for how it was made, or something even remotely possible.

The cloth itself is a three to one twill, striped in the herringbone pattern. How very nice that they buried Jesus after his crucifixion with a fabric wave not used at the time. Not bad for a guy executed in the most humiliating style of the day.

Erm...

http://www.historicaljesusquest.com/linen-cloth.htm

Methchild Flury-Lemberg, a leading authority on historic textiles and the former curator of Switzerland’s Abegg Foundation Textile Museum, has reported strong similarities between the Shroud’s fabric and fragments of cloth produced in the Middle East about 2,000 years ago. According to Flury-Lemberg, the cloth’s finishing, its selvage, and a very distinctive joining seam, all closely resemble unique ancient textiles found in tombs of the Jewish palace-fortress Masada. The Masada fabrics have been reliably dated to between 40 BCE and 73 CE. Flury-Lemberg’s detailed analysis of the Shroud’s fabric – an exceptionally fine quality, z-twist, 3-over-1-herringbone patterned linen cloth – is evidence that it was manufactured in the Middle East on a Roman-period Egyptian or Syrian loom.
The unique, nearly invisible seam is particularly interesting and telling. The seam is about 8 centimeters from one edge. It appears that the cloth was cut lengthwise to remove some of the fabric’s width and then expertly and very distinctively seamed in a way that preserved the selvage (the finished edges produced on the loom). This nearly invisible style of seaming is consistent with the Masada fabrics and is unknown in medieval Europe.

Previously, Gilbert Raes, of the Ghent Institute of Textile Technology in Belgium, identified the herringbone twill as a pattern that was common in the Middle East during the first century. Raes had also discovered that the Shroud’s fabric contained, within the weave itself and thus possibly introduced on the loom, microscopic traces of a Middle East cotton variety known as Gossypium herbaccum. The evolving Talmudic traditions (Mishna) permitted linen to be woven on looms used for cotton but never on looms used for wool. While loose wool and even twentieth century nylon fibrils have been found on the Shroud, no wool has been found woven into the cloth as would likely be the case for looms in medieval Europe. Because the wool and the nylon are loose, they are likely contaminants. Flury-Lemberg’s and Raes’ evidence strongly suggests that the fabric of the Shroud of Turin is a Middle East fabric used in Israel around the time of Jesus.

Once you divorce the myth from the shroud it's no longer become a holy relic and it's much easier to believe that it was 14th-15th century hoax.

13th-14th century. The carbon dating measured from 1230-1390. And that would simply be near impossible. It would mean that the forgerer would have a knowledge of optics, physics, chemistry, ancient Levantine culture, ancient Roman weaponry, Middle Eastern flora and spices, etc, etc that would be simply impossible to have at that time.

[Vir Triumphalis]

13th-14th century. The carbon dating measured from 1230-1390. And that would simply be near impossible. It would mean that the forgerer would have a knowledge of optics, physics, chemistry, ancient Levantine culture, ancient Roman weaponry, Middle Eastern flora and spices, etc, etc that would be simply impossible to have at that time.

then the forgerer is not european?

[Elfdude]

13th-14th century. The carbon dating measured from 1230-1390. And that would simply be near impossible. It would mean that the forgerer would have a knowledge of optics, physics, chemistry, ancient Levantine culture, ancient Roman weaponry, Middle Eastern flora and spices, etc, etc that would be simply impossible to have at that time.

See this is a fallacy. For some reason you're presuming something is too complicated for individuals to create. This is the same reasoning for the idea that the pyramids were created by aliens. It's not a reasoning but a lack of reasoning. First off you say they wouldn't needed to know about optics. Not true, they wouldn't only needed to know of a neat thing you can do with some optics which is a simple thing. Scientific curiosities and tricks have been taught to individuals for thousands of years. The ability to make electricity for use in illusion predated electricity's working discovery by several thousand years. The ability to make a flying object predated the ability to fly by thousands of years etc.

Optics technology to reproduce the shroud existed so it would not require a particularly rare understanding to accomplish the optical requirements. Physics understanding is a red-herring there's no requirements of understanding how the process is happening merely that it will. Similarly chemistry understanding could be cursory at best, there's no requirement for understanding how it works merely that it does. Further this is totally ignoring the vast number of techniques that might've been used to reproduce the shroud.

For example it's entirely within reason to conclude that the shroud was created in the middle east in the 13th-14th centuries through the process of a dead man being buried after being crucified. The islamic traditions have kept crucification alive and well and the relative lack of blood at the wounds could be less proof that they were created but more evidence that the blood was thick and drained by the time the individual was wrapped in it. It's of typical practice to wrap the body in a temporary shroud on which chemical reactions could've easily transferred the image as it appears on the shroud.

No personal forgery, just simple misinformation about the source. I wonder how many moors sold artifacts of similar repute to Christians? There is a flood of shrouds that appeared around this time (not just the shroud of turin) and their authenticity has never been supported by the church itself which is a hell of a good reason to think it's unlikely they're real. The church rarely has as exhausting requirements for authenticity as science does so it's a good rule of thumb that if it's too ridiculous to be adopted by the church it's too ridiculous to be adopted at all.

Frankly more testing must be done but the church is leery about settling the mystery once and for all given the tourism the shroud brings despite the official church position that it's not real.

[Tankbuster]

Besides, friggin' everything points to it being Medieval fake. Not just some of the evidence, but literally all of it.

For example:
- we have a written document by a bishop who tells us that he's found the man who made the Shroud
- carbon dating dates it back to the 13th-14th century
- It first pops up in the Fourteenth Century.
- we have Fourteenth Century documentary evidence that it was faked and and that the local bishop identified the faker who admitted he faked it.
- it has pigments all over it used by artists in the Fourteenth Century.
- the image conforms to what people in the Fourteenth Century thought Jesus looked like (eg long hair) but doesn't conform to what devout First Century Jews looked like (short hair).
- the image conforms to Fourteenth Century artistic ideas about the physical proportions of a face, but not to actual human anatomy.
- the fabric is a twill weave linen as used in France in the Fourteenth Century and not the simple two-way weave used in linens in the ancient Middle East or used on the shroud wrappings recently excavated.

What more could you possible ask for to prove that it's Medieval?

It would mean that the forgerer would have a knowledge of optics, physics, chemistry, ancient Levantine culture, ancient Roman weaponry, Middle Eastern flora and spices, etc, etc that would be simply impossible to have at that time.

Well, first of all, Medieval artists were a lot smarter than we give them credit for (which is probably why their creations keep fooling people to this day). They had a lot of experience with faking artifacts and they had quite an extensive knowledge of what they needed to make an artifact look real.
Second of all, many of the so-called advanced knowledge an artist would have had to have about the Shroud is based on misunderstandings: for example the small traces of Middle Eastern linen we find on the Shroud could mean the artist in question was so smart to engrain them in the cloth, or it could have been contaminated by pilgrims travelling back from the Holy Land who went to see the Shroud on the way home (if you noticed, Turin is right on the way back to France or Spain).
Then there's the ridiculous claim that images of Middle Eastern plants can be seen on the "Shroud"(if you look with the eyes of faith that is)...
Ditto for the knowledge one would have had about First-Century clothing: the fabric of the Shroud is a twill weave linen that was often used in the Fourteenth Century; many of the correspondences with First-Century clothing are likely to be purely coincidental (since there are also many places where it does not resemble First-century clothing at all).

Add to that that the blood we find on the Shroud is actually not blood at all (real blood would have turned black after a while, yet this 'blood' miraculously stays red for some reason...) and that the Shroud is clearly not based on actual human anatomy but on Medieval anatomy, and the case for it being a Medieval fake is simply incontrovertible. We're dealing with a mountain of evidence here that clearly points to the fact that it's a Medieval fake.

[Dr. Croccer]

- we have a written document by a bishop who tells us that he's found the man who made the Shroud
we have Fourteenth Century documentary evidence that it was faked and and that the local bishop identified the faker who admitted he faked it.

Where? It's extremely doubtful that they just found a random guy who did it. If there was a forgerer, it's almost certain that he is either a monarch, a nobleman or a scientist/clergyman.

- It first pops up in the Fourteenth Century.

Which means jackshit.

- it has pigments all over it used by artists in the Fourteenth Century.

Except it's pretty much confirmed that the cloth wasn't simply painted on. The only way he could've engrained it was usining a complex camera obscura or bas relief method.

- the image conforms to what people in the Fourteenth Century thought Jesus looked like (eg long hair) but doesn't conform to what devout First Century Jews looked like (short hair).

Jesus wasn't exactly a devout First Century, considering that he rejected Jewish law.

- the image conforms to Fourteenth Century artistic ideas about the physical proportions of a face, but not to actual human anatomy.

Early Gothic style.






The blood drippings and lines show that the supposed forgerer must have had a complex understanding of the human anatomy, that was unknown in Europe at that time, which relied on Galenism. Arabs were far more educated on the matter, as they actually conducted autopsies and observed.

- the fabric is a twill weave linen as used in France in the Fourteenth Century and not the simple two-way weave used in linens in the ancient Middle East or used on the shroud wrappings recently excavated.

Apparantly not.

What more could you possible ask for to prove that it's Medieval?

Actual physical evidence rather than just assumptions.

Well, first of all, Medieval artists were a lot smarter than we give them credit for (which is probably why their creations keep fooling people to this day). They had a lot of experience with faking artifacts and they had quite an extensive knowledge of what they needed to make an artifact look real.

I'm not doubting the intelligence of the average learned 14th century man. That isn't the issue, the problem is that the forgerer would have to have knowledge and products that weren't available back then.

for example the small traces of Middle Eastern linen we find on the Shroud could mean the artist in question was so smart to engrain them in the cloth, or it could have been contaminated by pilgrims travelling back from the Holy Land who went to see the Shroud on the way home (if you noticed, Turin is right on the way back to France or Spain).

Except pilgrims weren't allowed to touch the Shroud. And, again, the entire linnen is Middle-Eastern styled, the entire weaving style Levantine.

Ditto for the knowledge one would have had about First-Century clothing: the fabric of the Shroud is a twill weave linen that was often used in the Fourteenth Century; many of the correspondences with First-Century clothing are likely to be purely coincidental (since there are also many places where it does not resemble First-century clothing at all).

Already disproven.

Add to that that the blood we find on the Shroud is actually not blood at all (real blood would have turned black after a while, yet this 'blood' miraculously stays red for some reason...)

It is? Last I checked, it was quite black.

and that the Shroud is clearly not based on actual human anatomy but on Medieval anatomy, and the case for it being a Medieval fake is simply incontrovertible.

Repeating yourself doesn't really help your case. If it was based on Galenism, then the blood and water stains of the wounds would look extremely different. Tests have revealed that the drips of blood on the shroud would be realistic to that of someone who had been flogged, worn a crown of thorns, stabbed through the wrists and stabbed in the side and who had remained upright for several hours.

We're dealing with a mountain of evidence here that clearly points to the fact that it's a Medieval fake.

No, we're dealing with alot of things which are either disproven, or simply aren't possible. Again, none of this is conclusive, impressive or even logically possible.

[Tankbuster]

Where? It's extremely doubtful that they just found a random guy who did it. If there was a forgerer, it's almost certain that he is either a monarch, a nobleman or a scientist/clergyman.

And why the hell is that almost certain (best to read the rest of my post before you answer the question)?
We have a letter from French bishop Pierre D'Arcis to Pope Clement wherein D'Arcis informs the Pope that he's found the painter responsible for the forgery, and the latter admitted that it was indeed him who made it.
Which is partly the reason why the Church never for a moment believed this artifact to be genuine, and they insisted that it could only be shown as a representation of the actual Shroud.

Which means jackshit.

Pardon? A so-called First Century artifact that first pops up (in perfect state, no less!) in the 14th Century is quite remarkable, really. You'd think that someone would have noticed it in the centuries before that...

So no, it doesn't mean 'jackshit', it's a strong indication that that's when it was created. And it's one of the many indications that this is a Medieval fake.

Except it's pretty much confirmed that the cloth wasn't simply painted on. The only way he could've engrained it was usining a complex camera obscura or bas relief method.

Eh, right. Still, we find traces of vermillion on the Shroud (that's the reddish pigment Medieval artists used to fake blood). And madder, another common Medieval red pigment. And small traces of orpiment, ultramarine and azurite - also Medieval pigments. Geez, it's almost like this thing was in a Medieval artist's workshop at some point...

Jesus wasn't exactly a devout First Century, considering that he rejected Jewish law

He was a devout First Century jew that did not reject Jewish law, but rather expanded on it (in the case of adultery).
Don't read modern Christian interpretations into historical events: if this Shroud was indeed based on a First Century Jewish rabbi, then we'd expect it to conform to the way First Century rabbis looked: he would have had a short beard (since a long beard indicated hellenistic decadence, which Jews despised). If the historical Jesus did have a beard like this, we'd expect at least a mention of that (or more specifically mentions of the way he would've been ridiculed).

Instead we find that the Shroud of Turin shows Jesus as having a long beard, and a forked one no less. Exactly conforming with how Medieval artists imagined Jesus, yet nothing like we'd expect from the actual Shroud of a dead First Century jew.

Early Gothic style.

That's not what I meant by saying that the Shroud does not conform to actual human anatomy. What I mean is that the eyes are about three quarters of the way up the face. Again, precisely how Medieval artists drawed people, yet nothing like human anatomy, which usually has a 2:5 ratio.
It is in proportion with Medieval artistic depictions of faces. Look at any Romanesque or early Gothic depiction of a human face (even the one you posted) and you'll see the eyes are above a line drawn halfway across the face. In real humans the eyes are always below this line. Note where they are on the "Shroud" image. (See here for details)

The blood drippings and lines show that the supposed forgerer must have had a complex understanding of the human anatomy, that was unknown in Europe at that time, which relied on Galenism. Arabs were far more educated on the matter, as they actually conducted autopsies and observed.

That's what the Shroudies say. Others point out how the blood flows makes no friggin' sense at all.

And apparently they had such a 'complex understanding of human anatomy' that they got the dimensions of an actual human face wildly wrong. Strangely selective anatomic knowledge in that case.

Apparantly not.

Yes, actually. Apparently so. Unless you've got some evidence that this particular fabric (twill weave linen) was used in First Century Palestine, by all means show it. So far no archaelogists have found it...

What we do know, is that this type of linen was very common in 14th Century France.

Actual physical evidence rather than just assumptions.

You mean like independent datings by three of the best C14-dating labs on the planet?
Like the various traces of Medieval pigments on the Shroud?
Artistic imaging and style consistent with Medieval artists?

And then you have to nerve to ask for physical evidence...

I'm not doubting the intelligence of the average learned 14th century man. That isn't the issue, the problem is that the forgerer would have to have knowledge and products that weren't available back then.

No, see above and below.

Except pilgrims weren't allowed to touch the Shroud.

Let's assume for a moment that that is true: the pollens on the Shroud were also found to contain fragments of nylon used to make womens' bras in the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

So... either we agree (as we have every reason to assume) that pilgrims did indeed deposit all kinds of contaminations (including fibers from Middle Eastern linnen) on the Shroud... or Jesus was a cross-dresser

And, again, the entire linnen is Middle-Eastern styled, the entire weaving style Levantine.

No, we're dealing with (Medieval style) 3 ply herringbone twill linen here. Common in the Middle Ages, but totally different from the usual Middle Eastern tabby woven linen.

Even Shroudies (you know, the few who still believe that this is not a Medieval fake) admit that we have zero examples of herringbone twill linen used in the Middle East in the First Century.

In short, you've got it backwards: the linen used for the Shroud were very common in the Middle Ages, yet (to our knowledge) non-existent in First Century Palestine. Yet another indication that this is a Medieval fake.

Already disproven.

Nope, sorry.

It is? Last I checked, it was quite black.

Quite black is not good enough. It's actually more reddish-brown, in other words the colours have only faded, not turned to black as actual blood does.
The reason this is particularly important is that we have documents of pilgrims in the Sixteenth Century detailing that the blood was still remarkably red. So we're dealing with a very peculiar type of blood: it stays sharply red for 1500 years, then turns reddish-brown (not black?) in the next 500 years.

That's another one of the 'mysteries' surrounding the Shroud (if you believe that it's real, that is). Pilgrims 1500 years ago commented how surprisingly sharp all the colours of the Shroud were and how well it had stood the test of time, yet suddenly virtually all the colours have faded away in less than 500 years.

I'll let you connect the dots on that one.

Repeating yourself doesn't really help your case. If it was based on Galenism, then the blood and water stains of the wounds would look extremely different. Tests have revealed that the drips of blood on the shroud would be realistic to that of someone who had been flogged, worn a crown of thorns, stabbed through the wrists and stabbed in the side and who had remained upright for several hours.

That's certainly the first I've heard of that, and I've been over this before.

I have noticed many claims about the supposedly extremely 'realistic' blood circulation and wounds on the Shroud; strangely these claims are always made by believers; to others it's noticeable how the circulation is actually quite unrealistic (a bit like Jesus' hair on the Shroud, by the way: it's consistent with how hair looks like on somebody who is standing up, but not when lying down. Maybe Jesus had hair gel or something.)

No, we're dealing with alot of things which are either disproven, or simply aren't possible. Again, none of this is conclusive, impressive or even logically possible.

No, we're dealing with a small mountain of evidence all indicating that this is a Medieval fake. Not just some of the evidence, but all of the evidence and all of the studies and all of our written documents point to this being a fake artifact.

The only mystery here is why some people frantically keep clutching at straws

[Manco]

I hadn't actually noticed it, but Turin Jesus's hair is alongside the face.
Having practically the same haircut as Turin Jesus (similar beard as well till a week ago ), I can say with certainty that hair doesn't stay alongside the face. It falls back, and would never have the ability to leave an impression in the cloth like that.

Unless of course Jews had the habit of making their corpses stand upright in their burial shrouds.

[Tankbuster]

Yep. That's just one of the many anatomical disfigurations that Jesus apparently suffered from: he has eyes much higher up in his skull than real human beings (curiously conforming exactly to what we'd expect from Medieval artists), he has one arm that's a lot longer than the other (which makes it possible to discreetly cover his genitalia), and he has special hair follicles or gel to keep his hair in cool positions even when lying down (curiously again conforming to the way Medieval artists often painted people).

Strange guy.

[Phier]

So Jesus walks into a bar and the bartender says "Hey Jesus, why the long face?"

[Mr. Crow]

i can prove, the shroud is fake whith only a doll, paint, and a white rag, this is how.

1.- you paint the fron of the doll

2.- you cover the doll with the rag

3.- you remove the rag,

4.- you notice that the picture does not look at all like a human face, because humans are 3d. while puting a 3d image in a 2d surface, the face apears to be quite more round, because of the cheeks.