Talk:Shroud of Turin

The Shroud of Christ: A pictorial look at its forensics and history

This got booted almost faster than a blink: click here

I find it interesting how much Wikipedia has changed in 10 years, when an almost identical version of this page was in the external links, and stayed there (in different forms) for over half a year, until the link became defunct.

From what I understand, exceptions for blog pages are possible, and I thought that this one would be appreciated, as it not only offers a concise but thorough look at the subject, but does so pictorially, as well.

I'm wondering if Wikipedia is using newer technology, allowing editors to stalk certain articles. Obviously, these changes, if they occur in less than one minute, are being made without giving the contribution any fair consideration. Quite a difference from 10 years ago! 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:D40E:7267:23D0:E01 (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It is a WP:PROFRINGE page, and it does not belong here. If it was tolerated ten years ago, that was a mistake, and it is a good thing if Wikipedia has changed since then. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

But these sentences, which cite to sources that DO NOT SUPPORT the text of the sentences, remain untouchable:

"Such fringe theories have been refuted by carbon-dating experts and others based on evidence from the shroud itself. Refuted theories include the medieval repair theory, the bio-contamination theories and the carbon monoxide theory." 69.12.13.37 (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean "DO NOT SUPPORT"? Did you read those sources? -

-Hob Gadling (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes 69.12.13.37 (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Along those lines, there are MANY forensic experts and pathologists who have concluded that there was no way known to man that the image on the cloth, documented to be in three-dimensions, could have been created by any way known at the time to which the C14 testing dates the cloth.

A forensic expert would note that there was no way known to mankind at that time on how to create a 3-diminensional image of cloth.

Pathologists say that the accurate biology of the cloth [blood tested reflects that it came from one who was dying by asphyxiation] is astounding, because no one from that time was familiar with details of pathology.

In a room full of forensic experts and/or pathologists, you [as a devotee of the C14 testing] would be called a "fringe" theorist -- according to the [argumentative] way that term is being used within this article.

Genuine scientists don't dismiss the conclusion of another field of science as "fringe" simply because their own area of expertise indicates something different that other field of science. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTAFORUM. There are many crank shroudies publishing fringe nonsense about it. If you have a concrete proposal based on a reliable source, please make it. Bon courage (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Footnote 8 is to a highly reputable paper which does, in fact, question Rogers' conclusions, but it does so in a far more nuanced way than this sentence suggests, concluding: "We assume that there will be future studies on the Shroud of Turin. Any such future sampling should include another sample of the shroud away from the previous area sampled. In our opinion, such a study would be useful to confirm the previous results and should include both textile analysis and 14C measurements." Thus, the authors of the paper themselves are not claiming to establish "scientific consensus" but contributing to the consensus that additional testing is needed (over which there is, in fact, incredible scientific consensus that SHOULD be mentioned in this article).

Footnote 9 is from a dead website/blog, not a scholarly paper, and the archived copy would reflect this website entry was from a personal blog of the author and not peer-reviewed. That's really not a worthy citation to rebut Rogers' peer-reviewed paper published in a scholarly U of Cal science journal. He is plainly speaking personal opinion in this article, and not requesting peer-review -- in fact, he was being open and honest about that point.

Footnote 10 is a citation to an out-of-date Random House encyclopedia. That's just incredibly poor scholarship. And how does this refute scholarly papers that came later.

Footnote 11 is a citation to an article published in 1990 and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. To claim it rebuts an article written 15 years later (Rogers paper) is intolerable.

Footnote 12 cites to a web article by a genuine giant in this field, Dr. Christopher Bronk Ramsey. In that paper, Dr. Ramsey expresses measured doubt over the contamination by carbon monoxide theory, advanced by John Jackson, but he does not dismiss it out-of-hand: "The only way to see if this sort of contamination is possible is to do experimental work on modern linen. The key question is whether carbon monoxide reacts to any significant extent with linen." Notably, Dr. Ramsey also writes: "There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed. It is important that we continue to test the accuracy of the original radiocarbon tests as we are already doing. It is equally important that experts assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the Shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information."

Footnote 13 is to an on-line chemistry publication. Again, not really a worthy source to establish the claimed "scientific consensus."

I don't see how these two sentences can stand. They are not supported by legitimately cited sources. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Settled science is not "out of date". The book on this was closed long ago. All this stuff (including Ramsey) is covered in detail at Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin. Bon courage (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This is the response that I expected. Not very impressive at all. Six citations that clearly do not carry the weight of these two flawed sentences -- and your response is even worse. Just a warning: those who use the words "this is settled science" are usually proven wrong at a later date. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Doubt it. But even so it doesn't matter because Wikipedia doesn't try to be "right", merely to reflect what authoritative mainstream published sources are saying about a topic. Bon courage (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Your response makes no sense. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

With these two sentences, this Wikipedia page is doing an excellent job executing its goal of not trying to be right. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Science separates empirical fact from ideological Truth. Prior to the scientific revolution it was held that heavy objects fall faster than light ones, because Aristotle's rhetoric was more powerful than those who advocated the opposite. Aristotelian Truth was replaced by scientific fact - and the scientific revolution was the replacement of rhetoric (Truth) with empirically testable evidence (fact, a term borrowed from law). The same happened with the evolution of life on earth. It had been thought for over a century that life evolved, but Darwin described a mechanism and also showed examples of how this could be seen in real time through selective breeding. Darwin's work was not new or monolithic, it was incremental. Like Einstein, he took concepts that a lot of people had suspected and were testing, and stated them in a clear and unforgettable way: random mutation fixed by non-random selection over extremely long periods of time. The first two were well known to exist and were used daily by farmers and breeders, accepting the last only required ignoring man-made religious doctrine on the age of the earth.

Nothing in biology makes the slightest sense unless viewed with an understanding of evolution. Nothing in cosmology, geology or physics makes the slightest sense if you're determined to believe the universe is thousands, rather than billions, of years old.

That's science for you. Your Truth is not in line with empirical fact. Wikipedia is a fact-based project.
— User:JzG

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion would be delete the two sentences, since the footnoted sources don't support the claims made in the sentences. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've read them. The problem should be obvious: the article is claiming that the footnoted sources "refute" what are called "fringe" theories. First, the so-called "fringe theories" discussed are raised in many studies and papers that post-date the sources cited. It should be clear (for example) that a 2005 paper cannot "refute" a 2020 paper. Second, the labeling as "fringe" certain theories advanced by studies and articles published in highly respected academic and scientific journals, is argumentative. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

That is part of the normal fringe-theory situation: people refute the bullshit, and new bullshit is published afterward. Not impressive. Your opinion that something does not refute something else is also part of the normal fringe-theory situation: fringe believers deny that there has been a refutation of their claims because they conflate the refutation of reasoning in favor of unfalsifiable ideas with the logically impossible refutation of the ideas themselves. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Your response makes no sense. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty common for advocates of pseudoscience to continue publishing ideas that have been refuted. It is entirely possible for a 2005 paper to refute a 2020 paper if the latter rehashes arguments that have been raised before. When the same ideas are recycled over and over it is not necessary to prove them false each time. It's sufficient to call them out as already dealt with and move on.--Srleffler (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The case made by 69.12.13.37 (hike) to delete the sentences seems strong based on their source analysis. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Scientific papers both for and against the Shroud should be presented fairly.

Many years ago, it was estimated that the Shroud had already undergone some half-a-million research hours by experts. Whatever the exact figures are, it's definitely the most researched object in human history, with many specialists in numerous fields presenting cases for its authenticity. That's about as far from 'fringe' as you can get.

I personally set out to disprove the Shroud through an honest analysis of all available data. Whether I liked it or not, I was willing to admit that there is, without any doubt, an overwhelming amount of evidence in its favor. I felt like I'd have to deceive myself to continue denying it, so I decided to let the guy live (besides, he seems to have humanity's best interests in mind, according to the New Testament).

This skeptic-frustrating piece of linen, it should be pointed out, is a world apart from Roman Catholic fakes (created to capitalize off of it), and it also has a proven history that far antiquates the existence of Roman Catholicism. Maybe it should be in a museum of human mysteries or something. Check out that blog, it really turns out to be well worth it: click here

By the way, if that main picture, the close-up, is in fact photo-shopped, shouldn't it be replaced with an accurate photo-negative? Otherwise, it should be described as 'artificially-enhanced'. But why have a false halo effect? The real photo-negative is impressive enough. 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:1C38:461:747C:51E5 (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not on your opinion, say-so, or argumentation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

And it just so happens that "reliable sources" on Wikipedia are those that perfectly align with what Wikipedia editors believe to be true. Amazing how that works. 98.128.158.210 (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Not true. There are also clueless Wikipedia editors who do not accept those sources. Can you please stop using this page as a forum? See WP:NOTFORUM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no science favouring the religious narrative. The shroud is a forgery. The "science" to the contrary consists of policy-based evidence making.

Plenty of religious people have no problem at all with this. It's only idolaters who do. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Idolaters?..

So you think that everyone who finds the evidence compelling also automatically feels compelled to worship the Shroud? That's silly.

I suppose there are those prone to worship the Shroud.

In fact, in Bible times, King Hezekiah disposed of a genuine artefact of Moses for this reason (Nehushtan). However, not everyone who considers the Shroud's realness a possibility wants to bow down and worship it.

Also, to assume that all scientific research of the Shroud is policy-based is not accurate.

STURP, for instance, had agnostics and atheists on board.

The radio-carbon dating, by contrast, was extremely policy-based. They were absolutely intent on disproving the Shroud, and did so by testing a medieval repair piece that had been documented by STURP. 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:840A:4A8A:2D9B:8F50 (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The radio-carbon dating did NOT test a repaired piece - this has been proven by actual science. In fact one of the leading STURP scientists verified that himself, using the actual photos taken by STURP. If you continue to ignore the actual evidence, then you will continue to wallow in self-imposed ignorance and frustration. The way it actually works is that Wikipedia editors align with the "reliable sources". That is not "amazing", it is merely scientific. Wdford (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the repair theory, to quote Jackson: "While this hypothesis has been argued on the basis of indirect chemistry, it can be discounted on the basis of evident bandings in the 1978 radiographs and transmitted light images of STURP. These data photographs show clearly that the banding structures (which are in the Shroud) propagate in an uninterrupted fashion through the region that would, ten years later, be where the sample was taken for radiocarbon dating." See here [1] You can get all this information at Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin, with minimal effort. Wdford (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

STURP

@99Moons: As Doug Weller said at [2], We aren't impartial, we are a mainstream encyclopedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

2022 WAXD testing shows dates about 2000 years ago

Please update your article as the sample that was taken earlier was a repair.

https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47 https://www.ncregister.com/interview/holy-shroud-of-turin-s-authenticity-can-no-longer-be-disputed-expert-asserts 73.228.186.92 (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. MDPI journal. No thanks. Bon courage (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

See WP:MDPI for Wikipedia's take on this publisher.--Srleffler (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

See also Talk:Shroud of Turin/Archive 19#Wide Angle X-Ray Scattering. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

"faint image of the front and back of a man"

Having seen a lot of back-and-forth editing of the phrase "faint image of the front and back of a man" in the lede, I wonder if we should not be more explicit. I don't think there is any reasonable doubt that the image on the Shroud is meant to be an image of Jesus. That is clearly the artist's intent. It's not a miraculous image. It's not an authentic image, but it is indeed an image of Jesus. Can we come up with wording that is clear about who the depicted person is, without implying a supernatural origin?

How about "...is a length of linen cloth that bears a faint image, which appears to be a depiction of Jesus, showing both sides of the body."? -- Srleffler (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

How about "...is a length of linen cloth that bears a faint image, which appears to resemble a depiction of Jesus, showing both sides of the body."? Wdford (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Depiction implies artwork, and there is no evidence that this is an artwork. Nobody can say with that level of certainty what it is, certainly not in Wikipedia's voice. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

We are not saying that it IS a depiction, we are saying that it RESEMBLES a depiction. No cause for concerns here. Wdford (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

What that wording would convey seems already implied in the lead and would just add an extra sentence saying the same thing in a roundabout and semi-confusing way. "Resembles a depiction" is like saying a lion resembles a tiger because they walk on four legs but please disregard the stripes. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

There is much more resemblance between a lion and a tiger than just that they both walk on four legs. They can actually interbreed. However I take your point about leaving the sentence as is. I would actually like to go a bit further, to state that "... is a length of linen cloth dating to the Middle Ages that bears a faint image ... ". The current wording risks creating the false impression that the Shroud really is "the actual burial shroud". Wdford (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Judging from the disputed research and numerous points brought up on this talk page the wording 'dating to the Middle Ages' seems controversial enough to not be presented as fact without a qualifier. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The dating is not disputed by science, it is disputed only by a dwindling band of fringe supporters. The qualifier is already presented - some fringe supporters continue to clutch at straws, even though their straws have been scientifically refuted using actual science and actual evidence. Wdford (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It's better practice to introduce the dating in the context of how it was established. Tying the dating directly to the science that supports it reduces potential for conflict over the wording.--Srleffler (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the need for "appears to resemble". "Appears to be" already contains enough ambiguity. I acknowledge that depiction implies artwork and would be open to a more neutral phrase that doesn't carry that connotation.--Srleffler (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Rather leave that sentence as is, but change the next sentence to read "... after his crucifixion, during which time they believe Jesus's bodily image was miraculously imprinted on the cloth."

there is no evidence that this is an artwork Except the statement of the artist, the fact that the proportions of the depicted person are in agreement with the artistic standards of the time, the fact that pigments were found in it that were used back then, and the fact there was no other method in the Middle Ages to put a picture of a person on a 2D surface except art. Please stop pushing fringe views here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

All scientific research as "fringe"?

Wikipedia can be a handy resource.

However, for certain topics considered to be controversial by general skeptics and anti-religious antagonists, there tends to be a suppressive and unreasonable twisting of Wikipedia's rules and standards in a form of cyber-bullying.

Concerning the Shroud, I can perfectly understand that there are those who quite honestly do not want for the public to be deceived by an unbalanced presentation favoring a hoax. I personally investigated the Shroud for this reason, but found the evidence in favor of it to far outweigh the sketchy carbon dating of the documented repair piece.

This article had been special-featured on Wikipedia with a more neutral perspective, but it has now swung way too far into being skeptic-dominated.

On one hand, truly biblical Christians ought to have no inherent need for the Shroud to prove their faith. If real, it's a bonus. However, if it's real and also helps people with their faith, then that's wonderful.

At the same time, general skeptics, as well as those who, with concern about religious hypocrisy, want to dispute anything pertaining to evidence for faith (or for whatever reason beyond a general skepticism), still need to be fair and ethical themselves. If there's evidence that contradicts their presuppositions.. Well, it happens. It happened to me on this very subject.

Even for something as silly as Flat-Earth Theory (that I find both absurd and unbiblical), it was relieving to see that people actually came up with some interesting arguments (seemingly unexplainable flight patterns, international forbiddance to enter Antarctica, as if hiding truth about the edge of the world, the possibility of photo-shopping space photos, etc). It was reassuring that at least they had their arguments, and although I strongly disagree, their arguments are still a matter-of-fact thing (I think the curved shadow of the earth on the moon ought to be convincing enough for them, though).

By contrast, in the case of the Shroud, there is a ton of extremely accurate and specific evidence that has been professionally confirmed and academically published.

The point is that both sides need to be presented fairly and accurately.

Much Shroud research cannot accurately be labeled "fringe", because of its having been conducted by experts and published in academic journals. To label such as fringe is a lie and makes Wikipedia itself appear fringe!

It's also shameful disrespect of professionals, many of whom are putting their reputations at stake to evaluate the data and offer their conclusions. This is no less than defamation!

It would be insensitive to label atheists as "fringe", simply because they constitute a small percentage of the population. And yet in the case of the Shroud, scientific proponents are both numerous and qualified!

As mentioned elsewhere, to assume that all scientific research of the Shroud is "policy-based" is not accurate. STURP, for instance, had agnostics and atheists on board. The radio-carbon dating, by contrast, was extremely policy-based. They were absolutely intent on disproving the Shroud, and did so by testing a medieval repair piece that had been documented by STURP.

This one experiment seems to be the main justification for settling the issue among skeptics, dismissing all contrasting evidence, no matter how impressive or authenticated.

However:

1.) This doesn't automatically change the results of all other types of investigation, such as forensic accuracy, recorded historic antiquity, un-reproducible production of the image, etc.

2.) Askew dating has occurred for other controversial artefacts. For example, see: Carbon dating the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some had tests showing B.C. dates and other showing dates ranging well into the 2nd Century A.D. Advocates for an early-abandoned Qumran site want to make the public think that Jude quoted from the Pseudepigraphic Book of Enoch, undermining New Testament divine inspiration (rather than Pseudo-Enoch quoting the New Testament, as seen in other types of late 1st Century and 2nd Century Gnostic-oriented literature). Yet coins at the site evidence ongoing habitation, and even a signed letter from Bar Kokhba himself was found in a cave with biblical scrolls! (confirming a 2nd Century presence).

3.) The radio-carbon dating of the Shroud was itself extremely controversial, as they tested a medieval repair piece documented by STURP. Other "explanations" are pointless and unhelpful, but I nonetheless acknowledge these views as existing theories.

'Nuff said.

I feel what I have shared here is entirely relevant. First one to cry "Wall of Text" is a rotten egg. :) 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:840A:4A8A:2D9B:8F50 (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Raymond E. Brown did not believe that the shroud is authentic. He did not belong to general skeptics and anti-religious antagonists.

The Catholic Church has no official stance upon whether it was Jesus' burial shroud.

Shrouds aren't photographic plates. You don't throw a shroud upon a bleeding corpse and get something like a portrait photo. That's not something a shroud can do. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that there's a variety of stances on the Shroud. That was a part of what I was trying to express. There's agnostics who are intrigued by it, and there's Christians who don't believe in it, both Roman Catholic and Protestant. STURP'S Jewish photographer Barrie Schwartz came to faith in Jesus as the Jewish Messiah through his involvement with the project. There are all sorts of examples.

No one can as of yet reproduce this type of image. It involves a fractional singe-ing of the linen fibers, as if some sort of energy beam formed the image. It's a puzzler, indeed.

Emperor Constantine VII noted in his day that the image involves no paint pigments. It's basically an unsolved mystery and should be treated as such. 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:586D:39F7:F595:1D87 (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Energy beam? or just painted cloth? It's a puzzler indeed. I wonder what William of Occam would say ... I know what Wikipedia is obliged to say. Bon courage (talk) 05:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Not a puzzler for you of course, since your entire world would fall apart if the shroud would turn out to be authentic. So let's not pretend it's a huge shocker that you have conveniently convinced yourself that the "science is settled" on this matter. 98.128.158.210 (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

See WP:BIGMISTAKE. Bon courage (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

"and demand that it be corrected to conform to their own point of view"

Ringing any bells, kettle? 98.128.158.210 (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The evidence supporting the C14 dating is very clear, and the evidence debunking all the fringe hypotheses is actually very clear as well. This is laid out in the articles already. The Special Contributor has presumably read through it all in search of a loophole, has found no loopholes, and now is muttering around the fringes trying to pretend that the evidence doesn't exist. Wdford (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I guess some of you aren't aware that there's no paint. If you accept STURP, then check it out. 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:C407:D9DC:26B8:96C1 (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Your problem: WP:OR and WP:FRINGE sources are banned. Wikipedia is based upon mainstream science. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The image is caused by a different level of dehydration of some fibers vs others. That has been established by science. The issue is about what caused this selective dehydration? Some have speculated about lasers or neutron reactions or photographic reactions etc. Others jump happily toward holy miracles. Some have experimented with heat-scorching. The most probable theory is that the cloth was originally painted, using different colors that had different chemistries, and the paint "damaged" the fibers to differing extents. The paint has long since crumbled away and been washed off - one author reported that the Shroud was repeatedly boiled by the "fraud detectors" of their day. However the impact of that paint persists in the faint image which remains. Some researchers have tested this theory, and have found that medieval paint substances do indeed mark linen in this manner. The image is fading away over time, as the non-painted fibers gradually also dehydrate with age to the same levels as the formerly-painted fibers. It was once much more visible than today.Wdford (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

"Shroudies" and Doubties

As it's been pointed out, there's a variety of outlooks on the Shroud.

Some may feel sorry for those whom they think are susceptible to a clever hoax, while others may feel like the Shroud's evidence is being suppressed.

I think we all need to have more understanding with one another in the process of hashing this out, not for starting a chat forum, but simply to help put things in perspective for improving the article.

Those who've had a driver's license know that we have to be careful to watch out for "blind spots", those areas that happen to be outside our scope of vision. We do this intellectually by staying open to possibilities that we hadn't considered.

The Shroud is not essential to genuine faith, and so it can be critically evaluated. Unexplainable phenomenon are not a problem for Agnostics or even Atheism. There could turn out to be an explanation that satisfies everybody.

Personally, I tend to think of Jesus after his Resurrection as an extra-dimensional being. Not as an alien, but as the Eternal Spirit incarnated in human flesh. Not to get too theological here, just that we don't need to feel threatened or spooked by an artefact, if it's real. I know it makes some people uncomfortable. But it's actually pretty cool!

Even if someone pulled this off as a hoax (although, I highly doubt it being a hoax), one has to at least admit it's a stroke of genius, whether created by God, man or by both God and man at the same time by someone who happens to be both!

The uniqueness of this thing is why some have proposed Leonardo da Vinci as its inventor, a man who was ahead of his time (However, the Shroud does have a much older recorded history). 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:586D:39F7:F595:1D87 (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The science is settled, true believers deny it and tell themselves weird stories. Same as for many WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. Wikipedia sides with reality as sourced in the WP:BESTSOURCES. Bon courage (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Weird stories?

I started this topic specifically to encourage mutual respect.

What I'm finding is that a lot of Doubties (as I once was) seem willfully ignorant of the actual Shroud data. People are saying that it's a painted image and such. If this was the case, there wouldn't have been so many scientists studying it!

Perhaps this article shows a major failure of Wikipedia. The site is becoming irremediable and completely unreliable for articles on controversial subjects. It's simply impossible to have a balanced approach when people are irrationally or unreasonably antsy with their use of technology.

And I'm not signaling out anyone in particular, it's more like a new status quo or a "cancel culture" mindset.

Please try at least reading this blog that sums up much of the evidence for the Shroud, and see what you think: Click here

Wikipedia's article on the Shroud of Turin had actually been a special-featured article and was less biased. It's now a good example of a hostile take-over.

It's starting to look like an anathema-type situation, in other words (in the original New Testament sense of a changed spiritual reality), of having reached a point where there exists, in general, a definite commitment to a certain level of insensitive and calloused opposition. It's like a socio-spiritual phenomena that's gotten much worse than I remember on Wikipedia many years ago (even with as bad as it was then). I've been evaluating how it got this much worse.

It seems like the result of a combination of newer tech methods, where antagonists are empowered to stalk articles on Wikipedia, as well as other societal factors and changing attitudes and mentalities. It's really sad. :( 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:C407:D9DC:26B8:96C1 (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

undermining New Testament divine inspiration—that's just your own POV. I did not hear many Christian theologians making such a claim. Yup, there is university-level theology, expressed in what Wikipedia deems to be WP:RS. Your blog isn't one.

Further, since WP:GEVAL was enshrined in our WP:RULES, your POV has lost the game, here at Wikipedia.

Rhetoric and persuasion might have some place, but at the end of the day these cannot supplant mainstream WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)