Shroud of Turin was created "by a flash of supernatural light."

  • Thread starter Thread starter outremer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Shroud has been under study for a very long time now. One of the first articles I read about it, back when LIFE magazine was a weekly, put forth the theory that the image was formed by radiation, in fact that it might be a photo of the resurrection. There’s been a lot of research done since then, and still radiation burn is the most plausible theory to explain the origin of the image.
 
There are articles that exist that say that the Shroud has been replicated by simple methods.
 
Darryl1958 said:
There are articles that exist that say that the Shroud has been replicated by simple methods.
Click to expand...
It hasn’t been. The image is the most puzzling aspect of the shroud. There is no pigment. The image is formed by what appears to be a very shallow singe to just the outer layers of fiber. No one has yet found a way to replicate it. And the image as formed is a photographic negative. This wasn’t noticed until the advent of photography. When the first photos of the image were taken and developed, it was noted that what would have been the negative from the developer was actually a positive image of the man. The nature of the photograph is to first render a negative image of the subject on film. But the subject was already a negative image on the cloth, so the negative came out as a positive image.
 
JimG said:
It hasn’t been. The image is the most puzzling aspect of the shroud. There is no pigment. The image is formed by what appears to be a very shallow singe to just the outer layers of fiber. No one has yet found a way to replicate it. And the image as formed is a photographic negative. This wasn’t noticed until the advent of photography. When the first photos of the image were taken and developed, it was noted that what would have been the negative from the developer was actually a positive image of the man. The nature of the photograph is to first render a negative image of the subject on film. But the subject was already a negative image on the cloth, so the negative came out as a positive image.
Click to expand...
I find it fascinating. Just like the Eucharistic miracles.
 
JimG said:
It hasn’t been. The image is the most puzzling aspect of the shroud. There is no pigment. The image is formed by what appears to be a very shallow singe to just the outer layers of fiber. No one has yet found a way to replicate it. And the image as formed is a photographic negative. This wasn’t noticed until the advent of photography. When the first photos of the image were taken and developed, it was noted that what would have been the negative from the developer was actually a positive image of the man. The nature of the photograph is to first render a negative image of the subject on film. But the subject was already a negative image on the cloth, so the negative came out as a positive image.
Click to expand...
I know all this.
There are claims that this has all been replicated though.
 
JimG said:
It hasn’t been. The image is the most puzzling aspect of the shroud. There is no pigment.
Click to expand...
Walter McCrone documented the presence of pigment. Authenticity advocate Ray Rogers reported the presence of “dye” on his small collection of threads. Other authenticity supporters also now acknowledge the presence of pigment, but attribute it to being deposited by other paintings being rubbed against the shroud.
The image is formed by what appears to be a very shallow singe to just the outer layers of fiber. No one has yet found a way to replicate it.
Click to expand...
Though I’ve seen decent replications, anyone asking that the shroud be replicated as it is today is asking for the wrong thing. What needs to be replicated is the way the shroud appeared 700 years ago, when the image was apparently much more vivid than it is today. In any case, failure to replicate does not prove that the shroud is 2,000 years old or of supernatural origin.
And the image as formed is a photographic negative. This wasn’t noticed until the advent of photography. When the first photos of the image were taken and developed, it was noted that what would have been the negative from the developer was actually a positive image of the man. The nature of the photograph is to first render a negative image of the subject on film. But the subject was already a negative image on the cloth, so the negative came out as a positive image.
Click to expand...
If it’s a true photo negative, then Jesus had white hair and blood.
 
cornbread_r2 said:
Walter McCrone documented the presence of pigment. Authenticity advocate Ray Rogers reported the presence of “dye” on his small collection of threads. Other authenticity supporters also now acknowledge the presence of pigment, but attribute it to being deposited by other paintings being rubbed against the shroud.

Though I’ve seen decent replications, anyone asking that the shroud be replicated as it is today is asking for the wrong thing. What needs to be replicated is the way the shroud appeared 700 years ago, when the image was apparently much more vivid than it is today. In any case, failure to replicate does not prove that the shroud is 2,000 years old or of supernatural origin.

If it’s a true photo negative, then Jesus had white hair and blood.
Click to expand...
2000 years is not old. Museums are full of Pharaohs linen gear 3000 years old or more and Christ was much more important to the first Christians than Pharaoh ever was. There is no reason why the shroud would not have survived.
Its a negative image if light/radiation came from every particle of Christ. So that the skin nearest and touching the cloth oxidized more of the cellulose on the linen than skin with a small space between it and the cloth. This space reduces the intensity of radiation falling on the cloth but the cloth is still hit by the radiation allowing grades in shading even in shadow areas, like around the eyes.

The image cannot be a painting. Ochre or yellow earth is and always was a common pigment, but it is, you know, just soil from the ground. Heres the reason it cannot be a painted image. Pigments are painted by brush, the pigments suspended in a medium of liquid. Liquid soaks through cloth in a moment but the shroud image is on the outside facing surface of microscopic fibrils of the linen and where two fibrils overlap there is a shadow gap between them with no image. To paint on microscopic fibrils you need a microscopic brush and a microscope.
A linen fibril is 10-15 micrometers thick, a flax plant cell has a diameter of 10-25 micrometers, for comparison. And its even worse than that because the image is on only the surface of one side of the fibril. A liquid would obviously soak straight through the fabric and coat all surfaces of the microscopic fibrils.

Higher Education Support | McGraw Hill Higher Education

Learn more about McGraw-Hill products and services, get support, request permissions, and more.
www.mheducation.com www.mheducation.com
 
JimG said:
It hasn’t been. The image is the most puzzling aspect of the shroud. There is no pigment. The image is formed by what appears to be a very shallow singe to just the outer layers of fiber. No one has yet found a way to replicate it. And the image as formed is a photographic negative. This wasn’t noticed until the advent of photography. When the first photos of the image were taken and developed, it was noted that what would have been the negative from the developer was actually a positive image of the man. The nature of the photograph is to first render a negative image of the subject on film. But the subject was already a negative image on the cloth, so the negative came out as a positive image.
Click to expand...
Some scientists say it was made with a camera obscura, I think. Some type of primitive camera. But if it was, where are all the other “camera obscura” photos of the time?
 
Yes, the theory of the radiation burn has been around for a long time, and these Italians.scientists were not the first ones to come up with it. Several scientist that studied it with modern technology agree that it was radiation burn.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
Some scientists say it was made with a camera obscura, I think. Some type of primitive camera. But if it was, where are all the other “camera obscura” photos of the time?
Click to expand...
Yes the most successful theory, that was able to explain how it could have been.done.In medieval times, that supports the medieval forgery it is the one of the primitive camera. The it big problem with this theory is that where are these primitive cameras, why no one ever recorded the use of one or why there is no report of one.In history and where are the other photos and why it was done just once just for the shroud. As one scientist said on History channel, if indeed was this, then the most amazing genious in the entire history of humanity has been left out of history
 
I remember a TV show where it was mentioned that the image of the body on the shroud was not the image of a body lying down but the image of a body suspended or floating in the air.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
Some scientists say it was made with a camera obscura, I think. Some type of primitive camera. But if it was, where are all the other “camera obscura” photos of the time?
Click to expand...
You cannot make a photograph on linen. It would need to be covered with a silver chemical and perfectly protected from light until used and afterwards & then it needs to be fixed in chemical bath, very difficult for student in lab learning. Impossible 2000 years ago besides the fact I don’t think anyone has found any silver chemicals on the shroud. There is nothing there except a microscopically thin layer of cellulose on the surface of all fibrils and the facing ‘out’ side has been oxidized slightly more than the rest even to below the surface of the fibril, a bit, giving it a slightly darker shade, which produces the image we see.
 
Let’s not forget the blood. The blood, for it to remain red, the person “donating” the blood has to suffer EXTREME agony and physical pain, so that a chemical is released in their system. This chemical in the blood prevents the blood from turning brown/black.

So along with the camera obscura theory, don’t forget to add in the fact that the forger would need to bath the shroud in silver bath, and then would have to torture someone for hours so they could have blood to use on the Shroud.
 
zz912 said:
Let’s not forget the blood. The blood, for it to remain red, the person “donating” the blood has to suffer EXTREME agony and physical pain, so that a chemical is released in their system. This chemical in the blood prevents the blood from turning brown/black.

So along with the camera obscura theory, don’t forget to add in the fact that the forger would need to bath the shroud in silver bath, and then would have to torture someone for hours so they could have blood to use on the Shroud.
Click to expand...
Ray Rogers postulated that a maillard reaction occurred when the body began to decompose in the tomb. The gases reacted with a starch on the surface and caused the browning effect.

The paper he wrote was co authored by Ana Arnoldi,a food chemist.

I still tend to believe the 3 labs correctly dated the Shroud.and it is medieval.
 
cjforJesus said:
Ray Rogers postulated that a maillard reaction occurred when the body began to decompose in the tomb. The gases reacted with a starch on the surface and caused the browning effect.

The paper he wrote was co authored by Ana Arnoldi,a food chemist.

I still tend to believe the 3 labs correctly dated the Shroud.and it is medieval.
Click to expand...
At some stage in medieval times a bishop ordered the shroud to be boiled in oil to see if it was true or a fake painting. So you would/could have medieval oil soaked and dried into the heart of the fabrics structure, not to mention that it was stored and displayed and handled all through the medieval period and not just locked away or buried and isolated as other samples used for carbon dating are - like the buried medieval remains of charcoal and scorched food and plants from somebodies camp fire. But if someone carried the burnt remains of the campfire around with them for 500 years, boiled them in modern oil, displayed them openly in public for hundreds of years, everyone handling them, replacing parts with modern charcoal, then your charred remains could conceivably easily be dated to more modern times.
 
besides the maillard reaction would be so simple to reproduce that everyone and their granny would be making images of dead ducks, chickens, hams etc. just by wrapping them in linen for three days at 10 degree C. Must try it sometime.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top