The testing of the shroud and the conclusions reached lie basically in two areas, the physical shroud itself and the very unique image on the shroud.
Physical Examination of the Shroud FACT: The shroud is a linen cloth measuring 4.6 x 1.1 meters corresponding to a standard measurement of 8 x 2 Philetaric cubits in use in Palestine during the first century.
In 1988, scientists at three separate laboratories dated samples from the Shroud to a range of 1260–1390 AD, which coincides with the first certain appearance of the shroud in the 1350s and is much later than the burial of Jesus in 30 or 33 AD. Samples were taken on April 21, 1988, in the Cathedral by Franco Testore, an expert on weaves and fabrics, and by Giovanni Riggi, a representative of the maker of bio-equipment "Numana".
The idea of scientifically dating the shroud had first been proposed in the 1960s, but permission had been refused because the procedure at the time would have required the destruction of too much fabric (almost 0.05 sq m ≅ 0.538 sq ft). P.), which involved about 30 scientists of various religious faiths, including non-Christians. Testore performed the weighting operations while Riggi made the actual cut.
FACT: The shroud contains pollen grains from 58 species of plants, 17 indigenous to Europe where the artifact has been for 7 centuries and the majority being plants indigenous, some exclusively, to the area of the Dead Sea and Turkey.
These include Nyoscyamus aureus, Artemisia herba-alba and Onosma syriacum. Image on the Shroud The shadowy image on the shroud is, of course, its most unique and enigmatic feature.
The ancient linen cloth of the Turin Shroud is yellowed with age and on it is a very faint image of the frontal and back view of a full human body.
The Giulio Clovio painting below shows how a burial shroud was used for burial 2000 years ago, during the time of Jesus.
that links and further authenticates two holy relics that millions of Christians believe offer physical proof of the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.https:// According to a review of Fanti's book posted here we learn https://shroudstory.com/2013/04/04/a-critical-review-of-giulio-fantis-new-book-unreliable-results-because-of-inade... The links I used never suggested he did not do science. I posted that the origin of the material he used in testing is of questionable origin. I substantiated those statements with links showing that the material used was collected by a vacuum cleaner and sticky tape. I did read somewhere that the shroud fragment was held up to see if there were any inconsistencies in the appearance, by backlighting it, and that nothing was seen to be amiss. Many findings in science are found to as you say "... suspect." That means that the methods were not adequate. [More]Fanti reports that his analysis is of shroud fibers. There is no evidence for it and yet they say something to effect of, "See what an expert repair job it was? Schwortz's No single artifact of the past has so exemplified the interface between science and religion as the Shroud of Turin. Shroud photographs (not appearing in original article) are from Barrie M.