Athetotheist wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:49 am
Mechthild Flury-Lemberg is an expert in the restoration of textiles, who headed the restoration and conservation of the Turin Shroud in 2002. She has rejected the theory of the "invisible reweaving", pointing out that it would be technically impossible to perform such a repair without leaving traces, and that she found no such traces in her study of the shroud.[/i]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarb ... d_of_Turin
I'm not so sure she had been looking for any invisible reweaving traces when working on the shroud in 2002. Many theories on countering the C-14 dating were proposed at that time and none had been published in any scientific journal until 2005, which was when Rogers published his paper with evidence of contamination that supported the reweave theory.
As for no such visual traces, anyone can look for themselves and see reweave irregularities. See
post 1934. This was also confirmed independently by three other textile experts.
Flury-Lemberg mentioned about the repair work after the 1532 fire by the Poor Clare nuns. However, as she notes, this was not the same technique as used in the Raes corner.
One of the very common repairs of a woven cloth is the closing of a hole by putting on a
patch, as the sisters at Chambery have done. A patch usually covers a hole or an
especially brittle, worn out area of a cloth. It is placed on top of the front, rising a little
higher than the surrounding area, and by this alone is easily recognizable. If the patch is
added to the reverse of a fabric, the brittle parts are fixed onto it. This too is very
noticeable. Even though the Chambery patches had been attached with great care, there is
no way to call the results invisible. Another domestic way to close a hole has always been
to simply darn it with no regard to the structure of the fabric. Certainly this does not fall
into the category of "invisible" (as in invisible mending).
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n65part5.pdf
One of her arguments is there was no need to have a repair done on that corner.
Therefore at no time
has the need to reinforce the corner parts arisen! If even the corner pieces cut away
before the fire of Chambery, have not been replaced, why should remaining areas, dirty
but intact, be reinforced or mended?
How would we know that? Obviously the shroud was handled many times and had undergone fires and burns. It was not impervious to damage, so what would prevent the corner from being damaged in the past?
She also argues if the Raes corner was repaired, it was done by the Poor Clare nuns.
The completion of the corner areas was only
achieved by the conservation measures of Chambery, when the whole shroud had to be
provided with a lining (the so-called Dutch cloth) to secure its stability.
How do we know that as well? I would say most likely it was
not done by the Poor Clare nuns since their task was to repair the 1532 burn marks, not the other parts of the cloth. And we don't know when the Raes corner was damaged in the first place.
Simply constantly repeating that I've presented no good evidence does not make your position stronger.
Yes. And I'll be moving on and we will leave it to readers to decide who's argument is stronger.
Then the question is, why haven't you presented more of it?
I've been answering questions from all you skeptics.
