The claim this week that the Shroud of Turin has writing on it is an extension of claims first made 30 years ago.
The first person who said to have seen faint letters on the controversial linen was the Italian Piero Ugolotti in 1979. Using digital image processing, he reported the existence of Greek and Latin letters written near the face.The current claim is that there are "fragments" of words in three languages - Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. The person who found these letters has written a book about them which she would like you to read.
Skeptics who debunked the claims in 1979 are no less adamant about the recent suggestions:
"There is no evidence that those letters do exist. Many have seen faint writings on the cloth. Rather than a shroud it looks like an encyclopedia," Bruno Barberis, director of the International Center for Shroud Studies of Turin, told Avvenire, a daily Catholic newspaper.
Machine wash-warm with like colors. Only non-chlorine bleach when needed.
ReplyDeleteI don't know that I see any writing on the Shroud, however all the so called scholars who claim that the Shroud is a Medevil forgery because of the carbon 14 dating are not very good scholars in the least. There were two people that found and proved the the carbon dating area was taken froma patched area where cotton and the original linen were intermeshed together and the cotton was dyed to match. This is fact and has been proven to be true.
ReplyDeleteI cut and pasted the info below so the media and other should stop with the hoax crap, because they look like idiots in light of the latest evidence:
Sue Benford and Joe Marino independently explored this idea with several textile experts and Ronald Hatfield of the radiocarbon dating firm Beta Analytic. There seemed to be clear visual evidence of 'invisible reweaving'. But the skeptically minded Rogers did not agree. He had already debunked every other argument so far offered to explain why the carbon 14 dating might be wrong. According to Ball, “Rogers thought that he would be able to ‘disprove [the] theory in five minutes’.” Instead he found clear evidence of mending. He also showed, with chemistry, that the shroud was at least thirteen hundred years old, twice as old as the radiocarbon date. And he proved, beyond any doubt, that the sample used in 1988 was chemically unlike the rest of the shroud and thus invalid.