Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shemeska" data-source="post: 1996045" data-attributes="member: 11697">*shrug* I don't have any reason to not believe that the shroud produced by the de Charney family and later accquired by the Savoys was the same. [-Insert cliche about when hearing hoofbeats assume horses, not zebras-] There's also a tendency to attribute tons of stuff to Di Vinci regardless of solid evidence, ie the modern Priory du Sion hoax, etc. Assuming the shroud an intentional artwork (possible, possibly not) I could see him doing it, but there's the question of why, and the lack of any evidence amongst his papers that he did so in either that case, or for any possible method he might have used. There's never been a precident for him doing similar things that I'm aware of. *another shrug*Still, either way, be it natural, an unintentional creation, intentional artwork for devotion, or a hoax, I'm curious how the image was put there, and while a number of theories abound as plausible, none have definatively been shown to have been the case. (Though granted scientists don't have uninhibited access to it)I can't make that assumption one way or the other, only that it seems plausible that the Turin cloth and the Edessa cloth are the same. And I've never seen any statements that the images on the front and back don't match in size or positioning, source?</blockquote>