Much has been made of the uniqueness of the Shroud’s distinctive 3/1 ‘herringbone’ weave, with rather bold and unjustified claims that it is ‘typical’ of various times and places, from Ancient Egypt to Medieval Denmark, which can hardly be justified by the evidence. Nevertheless, a close study of some of the errors in the weave […]
Author: hughfarey
I recently took part in a discussion in which my interlocutor suggested that if the Shroud were a medieval artefact, it should be possible to name the artist who made it. She went on to imply that if I couldn’t, that in itself was evidence of authenticity, which, of course, I disagreed with, but let […]
As I’ve suggested elsewhere, I think the Shroud image was produced by a craftsman commissioned to provide some visible ‘evidence’ that the cloth displayed before the congregation at the conclusion of the Easter ‘Quem Quaeritis’ ceremony resembled one that might really have covered the body of Jesus. There was, I think, no claim at its […]
In his “List of Evidences of the Turin Shroud”, Giulio Fanti and his co-authors include: “B13) The body image has the normal tones of light and dark reversed with respect to a photograph, such that body parts nearer to the cloth are darker.” At first sight this may seem reasonable, and explains the remarkable appearance […]
The Medieval Shroud 2 begins with a discussion about pareidolia which I think has been widely misunderstood, entirely due to my own extension of the meaning of the word further into general perception than was popularly warranted, and insufficient explanation of what I had extended it to mean. Let me clarify. Pareidolia is usually defined […]
The relative success of The Medieval Shroud and The Medieval Shroud 2 and 3 on academia.org has resulted in this spin-off, as a ‘place-holder’ for further research.