![]() The overlap in bloodstains helps to provide additional evidence of a shared relationship. In the case of the Shroud and Sudarium, with the same blood type, AB, such results are consistent with the idea that the cloths may have at one time covered the same individual, but they are by no means conclusive. ![]() I am unsure if this has ever been computer simulated to overlay/morph between them, but I found this type of approach extremely helpful.īlood typing comparison is an exclusion type test the only definitive conclusion that can be made from such studies is if distinct blood types exist, indicating that the cloths could not have wrapped the same person. For me, this was a huge help in appreciating the congruence between bloodstain patterns, especially the neck region on the dorsal image of the Shroud-I had always found it somewhat difficult to compare specific areas in photographs between the two. He demonstrated the polarized overlay technique which allowed going between the Shroud & the Sudarium as you wished-Each image is projected separately through a polarized filter, then a hand-held filter is used to switch back & forth. Alan Whanger & one of the things we discussed was the overlap of the bloodstains on the two cloths. I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity a few weeks ago to spend the afternoon with Dr. There is, needless to say, absolutely NO CORRESPONDENCE whatsoever – but that’s the least of his problems as far as equating a burial cloth with a face cloth, both supposedly draped over the same part of the anatomy, and presumably competing for quality image time. “Proof beyond reasonable doubt” ? Ah yes – one of Jones’s favourite expressions – what he calls killing (as distinct from shooting) the fox. Ed, on the so-called ‘Sudarium of Oviedo’. Here’s the current offering from Stephen E. Really, you need to read the whole post, Was the blood on the Shroud applied with a monkish felt-tip pen (well, a somewhat primitive version thereof)? But as Freeman himself admits, the Sudarium was "in Spain … in 1030," that is, 230 years before 1260 which is the earliest radiocarbon date of the Shroud!īut is that so? How good is the match-up proof? Why are so many people not convinced by this argument?Ĭolin Berry, who has a germaphobic or something like that fear now of commenting on blogs that he doesn’t own or control, disagrees on his own site, sans explanation. Yet for this to have been the work of a forger, he would have had to have access to the Shroud of Turin. ![]() The fit between the bloodstains on the Sudarium and the Shroud is too close and complex to have been mere coincidence. This part effectively deals with the Sudarium of Oviedo. Stephen Jones continues his critique of Charles Freeman’s "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," This is part 3B and if you haven’t read parts 1, 2 and 3A on his blog you should do so first.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |