The Shroud of Turin has been proven to be a medieval fake.
I will not retell the content of this article, but just want to talk about the New Chronology in general.
I'll start by telling you how I became a supporter of this theory.
The first doubts were born in school. The fact is that I was struck by the fact that in the school course on the history of the Middle Ages, the early Middle Ages - from the fall of the Roman Empire to, if my memory serves me, the 11th century, only a few paragraphs are devoted. And this is almost a millennium. Simply put, the compilers of the textbook had nothing to fill it with. Historians referred to the fact that there is simply little data, they say, it was a long time ago. However, the history of antiquity was presented in sufficient detail - in one word, a paradox.
The second paradox awaited me when I, like many young men, got carried away by studying armor and collecting toy soldiers. The fact is that after a fairly perfect outfit of Roman wine (and a cataphractor is generally a ready-made knight), some inexplicable rollback in technology is again observed. And the same outfit appears in Europe only somewhere in the 14th century. In both cases, somewhere inexplicably about 800-1000 years fell out, as if during this period humanity was in a kind of suspended animation. I did not write books, I did not develop armor, and somehow I did not even lead any special activity.
Then I got acquainted with the new chronology, and everything fell into place for me. True, the flow itself can be divided into two parts. The first is criticism, and the second is reconstruction.
I will dwell on each in more detail. In my opinion, the criticism of the new chronologists is in complete order. That is, they gouged the official version of history with sufficient reasoning. Throughout the entire time, as there is a new chronology, as a current, I have not met any intelligible criticism. By the way, it's the same on my blog. Apart from the word delirium, there are usually no other arguments. And this has been going on for more than 10 years. By the way, I do not understand people who cannot criticize reasonably, but at the same time, cannot, simply, agree with the correctness of the theory. I understand the state, or rather the academic community, to recognize the new chronology, which means it is necessary to redo all textbooks, both in universities and in schools, to retrain thousands of teachers. In short, such recognition will cost a lot of money. But what's stopping us … I don't understand?
The second part of the new chronology, reconstruction, also influences recognition. Or rather, its almost complete absence. Probably, he expressed himself not precisely, in the absence, but in a huge number of its options. In fact, there are as many options as there are authors. This is where academic science could help, in the end, instead of the old wrong story, develop a new version. Then you can teach children.
Promotional video:
Now back to the article that started it all. In my opinion, this fact alone is enough to once and for all become a supporter of the new chronology and never return to the old one.
Obviously, Luigi Garlaskelli is simply not familiar with the flow of the new chronology, otherwise he would have had a lot of questions at once. And of course, the main question is, why engage in counterfeiting anything that can be seen only at the beginning of the 20th century. In other words, the answer is clear, no one faked it, and Jesus was actually wrapped in it. Only at the time indicated by radiocarbon analysis. By the way, the same story is with other religious artifacts. For example, the spear with which the legionnaire pierced the body of Jesus, stored, in my opinion, in Austria, radiocarbon analysis also dates the same period of time.
Now the last one, many will ask the question - what about the various shards, the radiocarbon analysis of which shows many thousands of history? I will answer. Namely, as is the case with various man-made artifacts that are found in coal deposits, inside stones and the like. These and other earlier artifacts only prove that before our civilization on Earth there were the same civilizations of people, about the history of which, of course, nothing is known at all. But these archaeological finds simply prove that they were, and probably were, in plural numbers.