|
|
- It seems to us that the evidence against authenticity is actually very sparse and refutable. Here’s how we perceive it.
- Mainstream science tends to dismiss the supernatural. (This fact has been sufficient to have most well-educated persons “turn the other cheek” where the Shroud is concerned – and, never really consider the evidence for authenticity…) But then,
- There is lots of scientific evidence for the supernatural (the “paranormal”).
- We might someday decide that what we now call the supernatural is just a natural event that we didn’t understand. And finally,
- There may be a currently natural explanation for the image on the cloth – and, we just haven’t figured it out yet. (And at times, we seem to be getting close.)
- Then, there was that one, well-respected, and involved, scientist arguing forcefully (from 1973 to his death in 2001) that the Shroud was a beautiful phony. But then,
- Upon closer look at his work on the Shroud (confined to sticky tapes), however, his work becomes highly suspect.
- He was really the only involved scientist (other than those doing the carbon dating) that have argued against authenticity. And,
- When his arguments began to grow stale, the carbon-dating concluded that the 13th century was the earliest possible origin. But then,
- All the peer-reviewed papers following up on the 1988 carbon-dating have themselves concluded that the carbon dating was not valid.
- They concluded that the testing was done on a piece of the Shroud that was not representative of the larger cloth. Likely, a repair.
- On the other hand, it seems to us that the evidence for authenticity is humongous.
- The Shroud is, perhaps, the most scientifically studied of all ancient artifacts – and yet, no modern artist or scientist has been able to fully reproduce or explain it.
- If the Shroud is a “forgery,” the artist or ‘scientist’ responsible had to be of the 14th century, or earlier, and should have had very little of the relevant knowledge, technology and motive that modern artists and scientists – who still can’t reproduce it -- have.
- Some of the details on the Shroud are not “traditional” – but, where they depart from “tradition,” they fit with recently recognized scientific and historical facts, and, they still fit precisely with Biblical narrative...
- The "official" history of the Shroud (the recorded tracking of its identified movements) goes only as far back as 1350, but its "unofficial" history (its apparent recorded trail -- with gaps) does go back to the 1st century.
- The cloth itself, in all its measurable characteristics, is entirely appropriate.
- The image, in all its measurable characteristics, is also entirely appropriate.
- The NUMEROUS apparent blood stains, in all their measurable characteristics, are also entirely appropriate. And finally,
- There seem to be numerous “foreign objects” (pollen, flowers, etc.) imbedded or imprinted on the Shroud that are also entirely appropriate.
- The almost unanimous consensus among scientists having actually studied the Shroud, or the sticky tape, is that the image on the Shroud is neither painting, primitive ‘photograph’ or singeing (with, or rubbing of, a bas-relief).
- Everything about the Shroud seems to fit – nothing appears inappropriate -- and many of these probably appropriate characteristics of the Shroud would seem to defy 14th century knowledge, tools and/or motives.
|