All religious talks aside, do we know how exactly was it made? Is it lost technology? Are there any artifacts same as the turin we found or were mentioned in any texts before?
There's already a million dollars set to anyone who can replicate its propertiesIt's a relic that was bought with 2 castles, yet not one artisan of its time was able to even duplicate it. No historical artifact was able to have similar traitsEven with modern tech, it's still impossible to replicate due to the fact that the image does not penetrate past 2 microfibers.
>>17976524>how exactly was it made?Printed it with some sort of primitive method, probably used a relief or motif as a template, it would be cool if a marble relief was found that matched it exactly, (maybe it is hidden in the Vatican archives)
The fact we lost the technology doesn't mean it was made by god.Same as with moon landing.
>>17976524Replication have already been made. Like always Christians just deny it.
>>17976932It is neither "lost" nor a "tech'It was never mass-produced nor replicated. At allWhich is absurd. You'd think that a massively priced relic would have hundreds of copies. But there's none.
The Shroud of Turin was simply laid on the body of Christ. It's that fucking simple.
>>17976791this is the clear answer if you look at the shading of the figure, idk why theres any question. if it was really wrapped around a person it would conform to the shape more, and if it was from a person emanating light and burning it in the recesses wouldn’t be unshaded, it was either painted or laid atop a physical figure but not wrapped
>>17977818imo its probably a painting because of the way the head doesn’t wrap vertically and has a gap, which wouldn’t happen if it was folded over the head as in various depictions
Forgery>>17977818Thisit would be distorted if it was on real person
>>17977840There are no traces of pigments on the entire image.Also, chemical pigments are bound to penetrate through the fabric. The Turin image is miraculously thin
>>17977858>aggrandizationit's just a cloth with a pressed impression lmao
>>17977860Sure it is, sure it isRemake it
>>17977862my dirty underwear looks the same lmaolifelike impression of my buttcrack lol
>>17977817Truth nuke
>>17977858you can paint with any material, and my argument isn’t about the medium but how the image was made physically
There is a massive body of literature demonstrating the Shroud is medieval beyond all doubt and depicts a microcephalic gimp with an armspan that maybe one in a million ancient Jews had. Just read the Wikipedia page for the citations.Christians lie, gin up nonsense theories, squint at scans until they hallucinate, contrive eisegesis of John 20:6-7, and completely ignore the criticisms on the basis of the weave and anatomy - all so they can worship this rag. I would find it pathetic, except it's really contemptible to indulge in deluding yourself. At least retards have an excuse.
>>17977817You believe in magic flying jews though. Maybe your objectivity is compromised.
>>17977875There is no ''paint'. No chemical was found in the image.
>>17977888again you can paint using anything, biological material suspend in a medium, an oxidising compound whatever, the medium isnt relevant to my argument
>>17977888Medieval paint wouldn't be chemicals retard dumbass. It'd be a mixture of bloods, plant based organic material, and coppers. All which had been found in the shroud.
>>17977888Source?
>>17977904>>17977905>>17977903They found "red ochre" spread evenly on the fabric, as if it had been washed in a riverThe image itself has nothing in itNo chemical, no burn.Just discoloration that did not penetrate past 2 metersNothing can ever do that. Not even a modern laser set in whatever wavelength you wantSo, yeah.
>>17977912>meters*microfibers
>>17977912how many times do i have to say the medium is irrelevant to my argument retardo
>>17977919If there are no traces of elevated coloring material within the image, then it isn't a "medium"What you want is a "tool"A tool that can discolor a fabric with extreme precision
>>17977923?
>>17976621>Even with modern tech, it's still impossible to replicate due to the fact that the image does not penetrate past 2 microfibers.This is due to the deterioration of the material
I don't get christcucks. What do they think it is? They'll claim nothing could make the image and then right after claim its from the blood of Christ. What is it?
>>17976524I'll tell you exactly how this was made and it has been replicated.In the 1300's the dead body of a random man was made to look like Jesus depicted in the Gospel crucifixion, it was then hung up outside. A cloth shroud was dipped in water mixed with silver nitrate from plants and hung up in a dark room. The wall of the room had a small crystal lens like that of an eyeglass that made a pinhole camera. The image of the body was projected through the lens onto the shroud using the sunlight over several days and it burned the image into the fabric. That's why the image is top-lit, because the sun is high up in the sky. The shroud was then washed and the silver nitrate removed. This is why the image on the shroud is flat and not warped, because it never wrapped a body and is really a primitive photograph on cloth. That had all the technology to do this in that time.Shit for brains Christians will cope and seethe over this until the end of their days.
>>17978329You expect a dead body hung upside down for several days to not damage the cloth just by the release of its decaying fluids?Not to mention that lenses were absurdly and very miniscule costly back in those days
>>17978389Where did I say upside down you retard? The body was outside. The cloth was inside a room. The light from the sun reflected off the body, through the lens and onto the cloth. Oh no, how could religious con men ever afford to buy that expensive lens? Jesus is never coming back, he's not going to save you, you're a loser and a moron and your dirty rag is a fraud.
>>17978422Test your theory with a dead rat. See how quickly the body undergoes bloating if left outsideP.SSilver Nitrate doesn't exist in the 13th-century market. Silver Nitrate is made by dissolving silver in nitric acid. Nitric Acid is extremely difficult to produce in the 13th century and never received industrial use until well past 17'th century
>>17978433>In medieval Europe, alchemists harvested nitrated soil, found in places rich with decomposed plant and animal matter, manure, or urine-saturated earth, and washed this soil with water to dissolve the nitrates. They then filtered and evaporated the liquid to collect saltpeter (primarily potassium nitrate), which was later used to produce nitric acid to dissolve silver and form silver nitrate
>>17978442I said "market"That shit is not just expensive, it is also time-consuming and ultimately useless, as no one has any idea how to use it in profitable waysIt was used mostly by autists who wanted to boil piss and collect semen from hanged menNot conspirators
>>17978433A dead Jew who was the son of the mythical Canaanite god El did not rise from the dead and go Super Saiyan on a cloth to leave us a self portrait and then fly into outer space. It was a pinhole lens hoax designed to fool low IQ's like you out of their money.
>>17978444We don't know how they got the silver nitrate or the lens, they didn't document it, but it was not impossible and this is how it was done and it has been replicated using only 13th century methods.
>>17978454Try it then.See what you can getNote:Bear in mind that the Shroud has way more properties than just an image, which must also be depicted in order to be an actual replication
>>17978467You will always reject any replica. Replica needs to age it for 700 years for it to have the same properties as the shroudWhining about people having to create a replica to prove you wrong is really lame, when the parameters are set up in such a way that we both know it cannot be done to your satisfaction As long it isn't the shroud itself you'll always be able to point at differences
>>17977804There's litterally a replica they fly around the world to sell cologne.
I watched the most unintentionally hilarious moment where the pro-shrouder kept mistaking his picture slide from a replica shroud with the real one CLEARLY replicas are possible
Regular reminder that if you are a protestant, the shroud of Turin is a piece of cloth. As worthless as any other bit of old rag.
>>17979286Just make it
>>17979322With my hyperbolic time chamber?
How would you even evaluate a shroud replica? It's not like the Vatican allows access to the original so you can compare
>>17978444>It was used mostly by autists who wanted to boil piss and collect semen from hanged menLmao that's medieval alchemy
>>17977818>>17977840>>17977854Replicate it and cash in your million, not even a christcuck but it's cringe to speak with such authority when you dont know the right answer let alone a way to replicate it
>>17979515>>17976621It was already done years ago. But the challenge guy will probably never concede, just like flat-earthers who have been offering money to anybody who would "prove" that Earth isn't flat.
>>17979515See >>17979291
>>17976524Not history or humanities, takes this to /sci/ or /x/.
>>17980675That was already disproven years ago>https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibault-lg.pdfUpper is the imitationBottom is the ShroudL.G. concluded: “We have also shown that pigments containing traces of acidic compounds can be artificially aged after the rubbing step (…) in such a way that, when the pigment is washed away, an image is obtained having the expected characteristics as the Shroud of Turin. In particular the image is pseudonegative, is fuzzy with half-tones, resides on the top-most fibers of the cloth, has some 3D embedded properties and does not fluoresce”. I think to the contrary that the image has none of these characteristics (except negativity and nonfluorescence). L.G. used a sophisticated method and a new interesting hypothesis, and he got the best Shroud-like image today. It is interesting to notice that even so, the properties of his image remain in fact very far from the fundamental properties of the Shroud image. 8 For the moment, the Shroud image remains unfakable.
>>17980805>I think to the contraryNot an argument. You're just proving the point that the shroud schizos will never accept any replicas. They'll just say "nuh-uh, it doesn't look EXACTLY like the shroud, so it doesn't count".
>>17980918You can see the difference.The imitation is just a flat splatAll it has achieved is appearing in a negative light
