capnkirk

Sven,

Have you looked at the image for yourself? "Proponents" make all kinds of claims; this is one that you can verify (or refute) for yourself quite easily. Go to the "proponent" link I offered above and examine the long, narrow facial image with hair hanging straight down (as if the corpse were standing) and try to reconcile that image with a cloth wrapped around a three dimensional head/body. THEN and only then, decide whether "proponents' arguments have any merit. That is the strength of this flaw; once it has been pointed out, it is so obvious that (unlike disputing the C14 results) no amount of obfuscation can make it go away. It ceases to be a question of which experts to trust. This you can see for yourself. No experts required.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

Casper

that doesn't look like the cover, and this particular book didn't suggest Davinci was the model, but that could have been it.

I'd like to know what exactly was "debunked". The book I went through was all about how the process was carried out, using items available at the time. Statues were used as models instead of corpses for obvious reasons.

I seem to remember something about South Africa being the location.

Sven

Yes, strongly looks like if you were right. The image at this link indeed looks like a mirror image. Then it's even more strange that proponents make claims like this...

Sven

I only remember the debunking of the claim (made in a book) that da Vinci made it. Perhaps it was another book. IIRC nobody doubted that da Vinci could have made it, and/or that the techniques were available.

Amlodhi

Hi Sven,

Again, I don't insist that this theory is correct, but the only major objection I can recall is that the radio carbon date of the shroud pre-dates DaVinci's time. Thus, they say, "How could DaVinci have done it if he wasn't born yet?".

As if DaVinci would have been so obtuse as to use a brand new cloth purchased down at the local weaver's to create his masterpiece.


Amlodhi