B
buffalo
Guest
- Status
S
SFH
Guest
I suspect that the Shroud of Turin is the real deal, but I recognize that different people interpret the evidence differently.
Certainly, your friend’s scriptural references pose no major threat to those who believe in the Shroud’s authenticity.
Christ was most likely not wrapped in the same manner as Lazarus. Remember that the women were returning to the tomb on Sunday morning to finish anointing His body with spices and preparing it for burial. (They had to stop the burial preparation on Good Friday because the Sabbath was approaching.) Once the women finished preparing His body for burial on Sunday, the body would have been wrapped in the types of binding cloths used on Lazarus. In the meantime (Good Friday and Holy Saturday), the body was covered with the Shroud to keep it clean.
Incidentally, Isaias 56:6 does not state what your friend claims it states. The passage he refers to is Isaias 50:6 and the passage can be translated “I gave my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who plucked my beard” (Confraternity/NAB) or “I have given my body to the strikers, and my cheeks to them that plucked them” (DR) or “I gave my back to the strikers, and my cheeks to those who plucked off the hair” (NJB). Note that none of these translations implies that Christ’s beard was completely pulled out.
Even if the Shroud is a fake, Christ wasn’t. And the Shroud can be an excellent means of contemplating His passion, death, and resurrection.
Certainly, your friend’s scriptural references pose no major threat to those who believe in the Shroud’s authenticity.
Christ was most likely not wrapped in the same manner as Lazarus. Remember that the women were returning to the tomb on Sunday morning to finish anointing His body with spices and preparing it for burial. (They had to stop the burial preparation on Good Friday because the Sabbath was approaching.) Once the women finished preparing His body for burial on Sunday, the body would have been wrapped in the types of binding cloths used on Lazarus. In the meantime (Good Friday and Holy Saturday), the body was covered with the Shroud to keep it clean.
Incidentally, Isaias 56:6 does not state what your friend claims it states. The passage he refers to is Isaias 50:6 and the passage can be translated “I gave my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who plucked my beard” (Confraternity/NAB) or “I have given my body to the strikers, and my cheeks to them that plucked them” (DR) or “I gave my back to the strikers, and my cheeks to those who plucked off the hair” (NJB). Note that none of these translations implies that Christ’s beard was completely pulled out.
Even if the Shroud is a fake, Christ wasn’t. And the Shroud can be an excellent means of contemplating His passion, death, and resurrection.
P
Paris_Blues
Guest
No, these weren’t MY points! These were what someone e-mailed me with THEIR quotes! I copied and pasted the text of what someone else said! I myself don’t know much about the shroud anyway so I can’t really defend it or can so these weren’t my words.Thought I might post some intriguing rebuttles to your questions, Paris Blues:
“The alleged inconsistency between the Shroud and John’s descriptions arose because some translators (e.g., New English Bible, New International Version) incorrectly translated the word othonia, found in John 19:40 and 20:5-7, to mean ‘narrow bands’ or strips of linen.’ In fact, othonia can refer to cloths of all sizes and shapes…The ancient Greek writer Dioskorides not only used othonia to mean a sheet but also coupled it with the verb *eneilein *(envelop in a sheet, eneilesas othonio), which is the verb that Mark chose to describe the burial of Jesus in a shroud (eneilesente sindoni).”
-Mark Antonacci, The Resurrection of the Shroud
Also, the head cloth can be explained. You see, a Jewish law is that any blood from the body to be buried that hits the ground is to be swept up by the burier. So, when Jesus died, what happened? His head fell forward. Thus, the blood from the wounds inflicted by the crown of thorns would fall. So, a cloth, identified as a Sudarium, was placed over the head so that Joseph of Arimathea wouldn’t have to sweep any blood into the tomb, which I’m sure was quite a distance from the crucifixion site. The Sudarium of Oviedo has identical blood marks on it as those from the Shroud. But, since there is no facial print, we know that the Sudarium was not on His face when he Resurrected, but since all blood must be present in the tomb, the Sudarium was placed in there as well.
One thing that must be understood is that, because he was an experienced writer, Isaiah must not be taken entirely literally. He probably used hyperboles and such just like modern writers. Really, do you think EVERY bone in Jesus’ body could be seen at the time of His crucifixon? Though Isaiah does say that “I can number all my bones.” Thus so, we cannot believe that the soldiers actually plucked out His entire beard. Hope that helps!
K
KennySe
Guest
I have the book on the Holy Grail, and it is very good reading! Two thumbs up!
J
john_doran
Guest
can you provide your source for this information? i can only assume you are talking about the book by Picknett and Prince, since, try as i might, i can find no other mention of any experiments involving “pee and egg whites”.
an in fact, their experiment didn’t use pee and egg whites, either: it used an albumin from gum arabic and ammonium bichromate. and ammonium bichromate is not urine.
the only mention i have been able to find of “urine” in the context of the shroud is with regard to soaking in dilute ammonia as a requirement of setting an image generated using silver nitrate - urine would do as a source of such dilute ammonia.
anyway, here’s a link to an article by a guy criticizing picknett and Prince’s methodology:
unisa.ac.za/Default.asp?Cmd=ViewContent&ContentID=7269
J
john_doran
Guest
here’s the relevant passage from the link i povided, above:
"Obviously, for me personally, the most disappointing aspect of this book concerned the rather dubious
This statement, of course, contradicts the very claims made on the dust cover of their book. Furthermore, as a direct result of my own investigations, I know that only two light sensitive
Picknett and Prince (who do not appear to have done much testing in this area) simply employ a technique based heavily on a standard nineteenth-century recipe - one which employs an albumen (or gum arabic) and ammonium bichromate solution (1994:161-5). It should also be borne in mind (despite the co-authors claims to the contrary) that chromium salts are relatively difficult substances to produce and even state themselves that `[a]s far as science acknowledges, the production of chromium from ore did not happen until 1798, when it was discovered by the French chemist Vauqueline in red lead ore from Siberia’ (1994:163). "
continued…
"Obviously, for me personally, the most disappointing aspect of this book concerned the rather dubious
experiments' that the co-authors undertook in their endeavours to prove the Prieuré de Sion photographic hypothesis. Having been most careful myself not to release anything on my own original work in this field until I was absolutely sure of my facts, I was perturbed by the laisser faire manner in which Picknett and Prince went about procuring their Shroud’ image on linen. The following statement (1994:163), sums up their attitude: We must say straightaway that there is no evidence that this particular solution was used in Leonardo’s day, still less by the maestro himself. It is, however, not impossible that it was. We were more concerned to find a method that worked, chiefly because there are so many possible substances that might fit the bill, that finding and testing them all would take far more time than we had available.This statement, of course, contradicts the very claims made on the dust cover of their book. Furthermore, as a direct result of my own investigations, I know that only two light sensitive
substances' could have been employed by these hypothetical photographers’ (medieval or Renaissance for that matter), namely: silver nitrate and silver sulphate. Only by employing either of these substances, which may both be safely traced back to the end of the thirteenth century and perhaps even before (Mellor 1922:459), is it possible to produce a photo-chemically induced scorch (oxidisation) on a piece of organic material by the action of sunlight. In addition, once the requisite image quality has been obtained, all silver salts may be removed by simply soaking the cloth in dilute ammonia. This action effectively strips away all of the light sensitive reagent leaving behind nothing except oxidised cellulose. Other substances, such as silver chloride, which were also available by the end of the thirteenth century are not suitable for this technique as they do not produce an image which conforms to the image formation characteristics as found on the Shroud of Turin and which were documented by the STURP Committee in 1978. In addition, because only the UV range of the light spectrum affects the silver salts in question, only quartz is suitable for lens production (Allen 1993b).Picknett and Prince (who do not appear to have done much testing in this area) simply employ a technique based heavily on a standard nineteenth-century recipe - one which employs an albumen (or gum arabic) and ammonium bichromate solution (1994:161-5). It should also be borne in mind (despite the co-authors claims to the contrary) that chromium salts are relatively difficult substances to produce and even state themselves that `[a]s far as science acknowledges, the production of chromium from ore did not happen until 1798, when it was discovered by the French chemist Vauqueline in red lead ore from Siberia’ (1994:163). "
continued…
J
john_doran
Guest
continued:
"By stark contrast, light sensitive substances such as silver sulphate and silver nitrate are simple to produce, deriving as they do from sulphuric acid (which also occurs naturally) and nitric acid respectively.
The authors compounded their mismanaged
The co-authors also claim that the Shroud is in effect a composite image, in that the likeness of the head was made separately from the body. There is no reason for this to have taken place, unless (as the authors claim) Leonardo specifically required his own portrait to grace the frontal image as found on the Shroud of Turin today. If we concede (for the sake of argument) that Leonardo did produce the Shroud in 1492, then we must also accept that Leonardo was of semitic origin, had his face beaten until it was swollen and bruised and even had his nose broken for good measure.
The co-authors would also, no doubt, be chastened to find out that (in the context of the Shroud) it is physically impossible to produce a life-sized (focused) photograph of a six-foot man employing only a single lens and sunlight, with anything less than a four-meter object conjugate distance and a lens made out of rock-crystal. Indeed, the very dimensions of the lens employed have a direct relationship to such factors as the length of exposure and quality of image. As a direct result of my own tests I know that if an image is to be obtained which is at all comparable to the standards set by the Shroud of Turin, and if it is essential for the image to be obtained within a week, then the lens must have a diameter of no less than 100 mm. The authors do not explain what material their particular lens was made from and I can only surmise the dimensions of their `fish-eye’ lens by looking at their photographs. For the purposes of demonstration, let us assume that their lens had a diameter of 30 mm and was made of quartz. If this lens was to be reground and polished such that it adequately focused the image of a life-sized figure with as little curvature of field as possible, then it would have to have a focal length of about 2,2 meters. This means that the combined object conjugage distance and image conjugate distance (i.e. the distance from the corpse to the lens and from the lens to the screen inside the camera obscura) would be about 8,8 meters. Applying the principle of the inverse square law to results based on my own experiments and subject to fluctuating weather conditions, it would take about a year (give or take a month) to produce the original Shroud with the revamped Picknett and Prince lens."
"By stark contrast, light sensitive substances such as silver sulphate and silver nitrate are simple to produce, deriving as they do from sulphuric acid (which also occurs naturally) and nitric acid respectively.
The authors compounded their mismanaged
experiment' by employing a fish-eye’ lens of unspecified dimensions, placed at (what I can only assume to be) an object conjugate distance of some 30 cm and produced a number of negative images of two objects, namely: a gargoyle and a plaster bust of a round-faced girl. These objects were illuminated by the use of two Osram Ultra-Vitalux ultraviolet lamps because Picknett and Prince did not have suitable weather in the United Kingdom in 1993. As a direct result of having obtained (again by their own admission), an unsuit„able fish-eye' lens - one which produced a grossly distorted image, complete with a lens flare (the latter being caused by the proximity of the two UV lamps), they then immediately assume that the missing ears’ phenomenon (as viewed on the Shroud image) is evidence of fish-eye' lens distortion! Unbelievably, they argue that the broken nose’ feature (as found on the Shroud of Turin’s frontal image), is in fact a lens flare! I should point out here that lens flares (which appear as bright patches, rings and even irregular patterns) are formed as a result of strong light reflections inside the lens itself. These in turn are caused by light sources which are either within or to the side of the area being photographed. Considering that the hypothetical photographers (who produced the original Shroud) most definitely did not make use of two static UV lamps placed 30 cm to either side of their corpse, it is highly unlikely that they would have had quite the same lens flare problem experienced by Picknett and Prince.The co-authors also claim that the Shroud is in effect a composite image, in that the likeness of the head was made separately from the body. There is no reason for this to have taken place, unless (as the authors claim) Leonardo specifically required his own portrait to grace the frontal image as found on the Shroud of Turin today. If we concede (for the sake of argument) that Leonardo did produce the Shroud in 1492, then we must also accept that Leonardo was of semitic origin, had his face beaten until it was swollen and bruised and even had his nose broken for good measure.
The co-authors would also, no doubt, be chastened to find out that (in the context of the Shroud) it is physically impossible to produce a life-sized (focused) photograph of a six-foot man employing only a single lens and sunlight, with anything less than a four-meter object conjugate distance and a lens made out of rock-crystal. Indeed, the very dimensions of the lens employed have a direct relationship to such factors as the length of exposure and quality of image. As a direct result of my own tests I know that if an image is to be obtained which is at all comparable to the standards set by the Shroud of Turin, and if it is essential for the image to be obtained within a week, then the lens must have a diameter of no less than 100 mm. The authors do not explain what material their particular lens was made from and I can only surmise the dimensions of their `fish-eye’ lens by looking at their photographs. For the purposes of demonstration, let us assume that their lens had a diameter of 30 mm and was made of quartz. If this lens was to be reground and polished such that it adequately focused the image of a life-sized figure with as little curvature of field as possible, then it would have to have a focal length of about 2,2 meters. This means that the combined object conjugage distance and image conjugate distance (i.e. the distance from the corpse to the lens and from the lens to the screen inside the camera obscura) would be about 8,8 meters. Applying the principle of the inverse square law to results based on my own experiments and subject to fluctuating weather conditions, it would take about a year (give or take a month) to produce the original Shroud with the revamped Picknett and Prince lens."
B
BibleReader
Guest
Hi, Spyder.
You obviously love the Shroud as much as I used to, and so put a lot into your answers, which treat my perspective with fairness.
Therefore, I will answer you objections, bit in inter-related bunches.
The Shroud of Turin status quo is that for centuries the custodians in the House of Savoy believed that they had the real McCoy in their possession, and that they transferred the real McCoy to the Vatican. Even despite the C-14 test, many still believe that the Vatican has the real McCoy.
How would this status quo have arisen?
Simple: It was an “inside job.” The House of Savoy DID once have the real thing in their possession, but one or more dishonest custodians cooperated with a rich relic-hungry relic fanatic, of which there were many in Europe, to have a very realistic copy made and swapped-in for the real thing. So, a butler in the House of Savoy suddenly has extremely wealthy children, the real shroud is in hiding in the mansion of some rich European fanatic, and the House of Savoy, unknown even to its patriarchs, suddenly owns one of the coolest forgeries in the history of the world.
“Any forger responsible for the image would have to have been able to…
“Encode the image on only the most superficial fibrils of the cloth’s threads…Transfer an image so lo in contrast that it fades into the background when an observer stands within six feet of it…Create an image that is not soluable in water, remains stable when subjected to high temperatures…Produce an image that is a vague negative when observed by the naked eye, but with…details that become visible only when photographed, at which point the negative turns into a positive image with light/dark and left/right reversed…”
EGG-AND-URINE-ON-LINEN PHOTOGRAPHY DOES ALL OF THESE THINGS.
I’ll address more bunches of your objections in future posts. Please be patient.
You obviously love the Shroud as much as I used to, and so put a lot into your answers, which treat my perspective with fairness.
Therefore, I will answer you objections, bit in inter-related bunches.
The Shroud of Turin status quo is that for centuries the custodians in the House of Savoy believed that they had the real McCoy in their possession, and that they transferred the real McCoy to the Vatican. Even despite the C-14 test, many still believe that the Vatican has the real McCoy.
How would this status quo have arisen?
Simple: It was an “inside job.” The House of Savoy DID once have the real thing in their possession, but one or more dishonest custodians cooperated with a rich relic-hungry relic fanatic, of which there were many in Europe, to have a very realistic copy made and swapped-in for the real thing. So, a butler in the House of Savoy suddenly has extremely wealthy children, the real shroud is in hiding in the mansion of some rich European fanatic, and the House of Savoy, unknown even to its patriarchs, suddenly owns one of the coolest forgeries in the history of the world.
“Any forger responsible for the image would have to have been able to…
“Encode the image on only the most superficial fibrils of the cloth’s threads…Transfer an image so lo in contrast that it fades into the background when an observer stands within six feet of it…Create an image that is not soluable in water, remains stable when subjected to high temperatures…Produce an image that is a vague negative when observed by the naked eye, but with…details that become visible only when photographed, at which point the negative turns into a positive image with light/dark and left/right reversed…”
EGG-AND-URINE-ON-LINEN PHOTOGRAPHY DOES ALL OF THESE THINGS.
I’ll address more bunches of your objections in future posts. Please be patient.
S
Sherlock
Guest
BibleReader,
You wrote: “No, only the successful fake, the current Shroud of Turin, appears to use the method described.”
But why is that? If the method was so successful, as you say, why wasn’t it repeated? If I had an inclination to produce fakes, and after extensive experimentation had come up with a very complex method that had produced a highly successful one, why wouldn’t I produce a string of ‘em, not just Jesus’ burial cloth but all kinds of shrouds from saints such as Saint Peter and Saint Paul?
Nor does the lack of a neck image mean anything: if I put a sheet over a figure, the cloth may be suspended from chin to chest, in varying degrees depending on how the sheet is stretched. This is not a conclusive bit of evidence against the authenticity.
You wrote: “And, of course, there is a camera obscura in Italy and Britain.”
The existence of the camera obscura does not prove that it was used to make the shroud.
As for your other points, it looks as though others have addressed them more fully than I can. Again, my faith is not dependent upon the authenticity of the Shroud, but personally I think it’s the real deal.
You wrote: “No, only the successful fake, the current Shroud of Turin, appears to use the method described.”
But why is that? If the method was so successful, as you say, why wasn’t it repeated? If I had an inclination to produce fakes, and after extensive experimentation had come up with a very complex method that had produced a highly successful one, why wouldn’t I produce a string of ‘em, not just Jesus’ burial cloth but all kinds of shrouds from saints such as Saint Peter and Saint Paul?
Nor does the lack of a neck image mean anything: if I put a sheet over a figure, the cloth may be suspended from chin to chest, in varying degrees depending on how the sheet is stretched. This is not a conclusive bit of evidence against the authenticity.
You wrote: “And, of course, there is a camera obscura in Italy and Britain.”
The existence of the camera obscura does not prove that it was used to make the shroud.
As for your other points, it looks as though others have addressed them more fully than I can. Again, my faith is not dependent upon the authenticity of the Shroud, but personally I think it’s the real deal.
K
Kurt_G
Guest
SFH, I agree with your scriptural explanation, and have tried to use it for scriptural Shroud skeptics before. Usually the subject changes to something else.
Let us say something here, so those who see others of us so enthralled with the Shroud understand where we’re coming from.
- No one is worshipping the Shroud.
- This relic, now recognized as the most scientifically studied single artifact in the history of manking, is making splashes as a true scientific phenonenon, not a religious one.
- The cascade of peer reviewed published research over the past three decades overwhelmingly favors an authentic 1st century burial cloth. Not many real scientists argue that point.
- Many of the studies were done by agnostic and/or atheistic men and women. However, close study of the Shroud has converted a large number of them over the years, according to Dr. Accetta. (Barry Schwortz hasn’t come over yet, but I wouldn’t rule it out!)
- There is always the** possibility** that Jesus left this for us today. Divine intervention could have protected it from destruction throughout history, allowing it to resurface at just the right time, when the secular world’s dependence on advanced scientific knowledge (rather than on God) is running rampant.
Wouldn’t it be like God to use this very science which has helped create many nonbelievers, to help prove to us what many today just cannot believe…that Jesus Christ really did rise from the dead for us, just as he was crucified for us?
Spyder1jcd, I love all your stuff. It’s bringing back memories…did you spend time on the Shroud’s forum when it was hot?
GOD BLESS US ALL!
S
Scullinius
Guest
Paris Blues:
Umm… excessive excitability, perhaps?
B
BibleReader
Guest
Because in the 15th or 16th century, a skillfully-executed egg-and-urine photograph on linen generated in a camera obscura supported with access to the REAL Shroud, generated after hundreds of tries, could only have been achieved by the “General Motors” of forgers – by a fantastically wealthy someone with access not only to immense wealth but also to the best scientific minds of the Renaissance, as well as access to the real Shroud.
Not only would trouble and expense have limited the effort, but if the goal was to substitute the fake in for the real one, to steal the real one, additional images on the street essentially identical to the fake swapped-into the House of Savoy for the real Shroud would have drawn attention to the thief.
B
BibleReader
Guest
Continuation of reply to Spyder…
“How could this medieval photographer have know the exact details of the circumstances of Roman crucifixion, including the nail wounds in the wrists?..How could a medieval artist have displayed a knowledge of physiology that would not be known until centuries later (apparently referring to the thumb business)?..Encode the wound on the cloth” in a way that just can’t have been known to a forger?..“Encode the appearance of a Pontius Pilate lepton” on the shroud…Encode a line representing the narrow lesion of the side wound…Encode blood marks on the cloth in exactly the form and shape that develop from wounds on human skin…”
I WOULDN’T USE THE WORD “ENCODE.” IT MAKES THE FORGERS SOUND LIKE CIA CRYPTOGRAPHERS. INSTEAD, I USE “COPY.” REMEMBER THAT THIS IS WHAT I SUSPECT WAS THE SCENARIO FOR THE FORGERY…
It was an “inside job.” The House of Savoy DID once have the real thing in their possession, but one or more dishonest custodians cooperated with a rich relic-hungry relic fanatic, of which there were many in Europe, to have a very realistic copy made and swapped-in for the real thing. So, a butler in the House of Savoy suddenly has extremely wealthy children, the real shroud is in hiding in the mansion of some rich European fanatic, and the House of Savoy, unknown even to its patriarchs, suddenly owns one of the coolest forgeries in the history of the world.
IN OTHER WORDS, FORGERS WOULD SIMPLY HAVE COPIED THE ACTUAL SHROUD. IT TOOK NO WONDROUS, UNATTAINABLE LEVEL OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE. THEY JUST COPIED THE DARN THING.
THE LEPTON PUT ON THE EYE OF THE CADAVER PHOTOGRAPHED TO MAKE THE SHROUD WOULD HAVE BEEN RECOVERED BY GRAVE-DESECRATING RELIC-HUNTERS AFTER THE FIRST CRUSADE.
“How could this medieval photographer have know the exact details of the circumstances of Roman crucifixion, including the nail wounds in the wrists?..How could a medieval artist have displayed a knowledge of physiology that would not be known until centuries later (apparently referring to the thumb business)?..Encode the wound on the cloth” in a way that just can’t have been known to a forger?..“Encode the appearance of a Pontius Pilate lepton” on the shroud…Encode a line representing the narrow lesion of the side wound…Encode blood marks on the cloth in exactly the form and shape that develop from wounds on human skin…”
I WOULDN’T USE THE WORD “ENCODE.” IT MAKES THE FORGERS SOUND LIKE CIA CRYPTOGRAPHERS. INSTEAD, I USE “COPY.” REMEMBER THAT THIS IS WHAT I SUSPECT WAS THE SCENARIO FOR THE FORGERY…
It was an “inside job.” The House of Savoy DID once have the real thing in their possession, but one or more dishonest custodians cooperated with a rich relic-hungry relic fanatic, of which there were many in Europe, to have a very realistic copy made and swapped-in for the real thing. So, a butler in the House of Savoy suddenly has extremely wealthy children, the real shroud is in hiding in the mansion of some rich European fanatic, and the House of Savoy, unknown even to its patriarchs, suddenly owns one of the coolest forgeries in the history of the world.
IN OTHER WORDS, FORGERS WOULD SIMPLY HAVE COPIED THE ACTUAL SHROUD. IT TOOK NO WONDROUS, UNATTAINABLE LEVEL OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE. THEY JUST COPIED THE DARN THING.
THE LEPTON PUT ON THE EYE OF THE CADAVER PHOTOGRAPHED TO MAKE THE SHROUD WOULD HAVE BEEN RECOVERED BY GRAVE-DESECRATING RELIC-HUNTERS AFTER THE FIRST CRUSADE.
P
Paris_Blues
Guest
Um…whatever! I don’t think so thank you very much!:ehh: Maybe you’re excited, perhaps?:bigyikes:Umm… excessive excitability, perhaps?
S
Sherlock
Guest
BibleReader,
Sorry, but your scenario of an “inside job” and a “rich relic-hungry relic fanatic” fits too nicely into the basic conspiracy theory template. It makes for an interesting story (all conspiracy stories do) but then so does “The DaVinci Code”. In particular, your description of the “General Motors” of forgers, a “fantastically wealthy someone with access not only to immense wealth but also to the best scientific minds of the Renaissance, as well as access to the real Shroud”, sounds more like the screenplay of a cool movie, with the perpetrator creeping stealthily through the castle, saying “muah-hahahahaha…” under his breath. Conspiracy stories, though interesting, always have to rely on big cover-ups (in this case of technology as well as of the fraud itself), big money, and powerful people pulling the strings. All you need to do is to throw in some hot gypsies, and there’s a blockbuster! Or, add nefarious Nazis, a plucky archaelogist, a secret map, and you’ve got Raiders of the Lost Ark.
I don’t think you’ve made your case by this means, but hey, it’s been a fun discussion.
Sorry, but your scenario of an “inside job” and a “rich relic-hungry relic fanatic” fits too nicely into the basic conspiracy theory template. It makes for an interesting story (all conspiracy stories do) but then so does “The DaVinci Code”. In particular, your description of the “General Motors” of forgers, a “fantastically wealthy someone with access not only to immense wealth but also to the best scientific minds of the Renaissance, as well as access to the real Shroud”, sounds more like the screenplay of a cool movie, with the perpetrator creeping stealthily through the castle, saying “muah-hahahahaha…” under his breath. Conspiracy stories, though interesting, always have to rely on big cover-ups (in this case of technology as well as of the fraud itself), big money, and powerful people pulling the strings. All you need to do is to throw in some hot gypsies, and there’s a blockbuster! Or, add nefarious Nazis, a plucky archaelogist, a secret map, and you’ve got Raiders of the Lost Ark.
I don’t think you’ve made your case by this means, but hey, it’s been a fun discussion.
B
BibleReader
Guest
Continuation of discussion of Spyder’s points…
“Create an image that is pressure-independent so that both frontal and dorsal body images are encoded with the same intensity, even though the dorsal side of the cloth would have had the full weight of a body lying on top of it;… Use an image-forming mechanism that operates uniformly regardless of what lies beneath it, i.e., over diverse substances such as skin, hair and, possibly, coins, flowers, teeth, and bones;… does not demonstrate signs of matting,… Incorporate specific effects of a draped cloth that fell through the body region - such as blood marks displaced into the hair, motion blurs at the side of the face and in the neck/throat region and below the hair, along with elongated fingers…”
This portion of your lists of characteristics are normally cited in the analyses “out there” as PROOF OF FORGERY.
In other words, WHY WEREN’T the figure’s buttocks mashed and spread against the cloth, in the dorsal image, by the figure’s own weight? WHY IS the image producing mechanism SO MUCH like photography? WHY AREN’T there signs of matting? WHY ARE there blurs, exactly like the blurs we see in the egg-and-urine photos? WHY ARE fingers and feet very elongated, PRECISELY the way such elongation occurs, the farther one moves away from the focal circles in the egg-and-urine photos?
The answer to the questions asked in the form I ask them is this…
The buttocks weren’t mashed because the cadaver photographed for the faked Shroud in Turin right now was suspended on a board, probably almost vertically, when the dorsal side of the body was photographed in the camera obscura for the dorsal image. The image is so much like photography because it IS an egg-and-urine photograph on linen. There AREN’T signs of matting because the Renaissance scientist forger(s) who forged the Shroud forgot that a sweaty, bloody, lymphy cadaver should have left matting ALL OVER the Shroud. Elongation occurs on the Shroud because elongation occurs in egg-and-urine photos, as distance from the focal circle increases.
“Create an image that is pressure-independent so that both frontal and dorsal body images are encoded with the same intensity, even though the dorsal side of the cloth would have had the full weight of a body lying on top of it;… Use an image-forming mechanism that operates uniformly regardless of what lies beneath it, i.e., over diverse substances such as skin, hair and, possibly, coins, flowers, teeth, and bones;… does not demonstrate signs of matting,… Incorporate specific effects of a draped cloth that fell through the body region - such as blood marks displaced into the hair, motion blurs at the side of the face and in the neck/throat region and below the hair, along with elongated fingers…”
This portion of your lists of characteristics are normally cited in the analyses “out there” as PROOF OF FORGERY.
In other words, WHY WEREN’T the figure’s buttocks mashed and spread against the cloth, in the dorsal image, by the figure’s own weight? WHY IS the image producing mechanism SO MUCH like photography? WHY AREN’T there signs of matting? WHY ARE there blurs, exactly like the blurs we see in the egg-and-urine photos? WHY ARE fingers and feet very elongated, PRECISELY the way such elongation occurs, the farther one moves away from the focal circles in the egg-and-urine photos?
The answer to the questions asked in the form I ask them is this…
The buttocks weren’t mashed because the cadaver photographed for the faked Shroud in Turin right now was suspended on a board, probably almost vertically, when the dorsal side of the body was photographed in the camera obscura for the dorsal image. The image is so much like photography because it IS an egg-and-urine photograph on linen. There AREN’T signs of matting because the Renaissance scientist forger(s) who forged the Shroud forgot that a sweaty, bloody, lymphy cadaver should have left matting ALL OVER the Shroud. Elongation occurs on the Shroud because elongation occurs in egg-and-urine photos, as distance from the focal circle increases.
B
BibleReader
Guest
You poor guy.
Don’t tell me…Lee Harvey Oswald really did kill Kennedy, right?
S
Sherlock
Guest
BibleReader,
Oswald?! Good heavens, man, the hot gypsies were behind the whole thing!!
Oswald?! Good heavens, man, the hot gypsies were behind the whole thing!!
J
JimO
Guest
BibleReader,
One of the greatest impacts of the shroud, if it were proven beyond a shadow of doubt to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, would be to provide physical evidence of the existence of Jesus and confirm the Gospel accounts. Most critics refuse to even consider this possibility because most critics, who are anti-Christian, don’t want that kind of evidence to exist. Also, most critics of the shroud have claimed that it not only is a fake, but that it was conjured up from its creator’s imagination, having no factual basis. I assume from your posts that you would not agree with this type of critic.
If your theory is true, it assumes that there was a genuine shroud that would have to have been copied. Well, my point is, if the shroud is a high quality copy of an original, it would still have the same significance. It would be “secondary” physical evidence.
BTW - I’ve read all your posts and have researched information on the shroud myself for years. You provide interesting information, but it doesn’t add up and makes no logical sense to me. But, we are free to disagree on this matter.
Blessings
One of the greatest impacts of the shroud, if it were proven beyond a shadow of doubt to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, would be to provide physical evidence of the existence of Jesus and confirm the Gospel accounts. Most critics refuse to even consider this possibility because most critics, who are anti-Christian, don’t want that kind of evidence to exist. Also, most critics of the shroud have claimed that it not only is a fake, but that it was conjured up from its creator’s imagination, having no factual basis. I assume from your posts that you would not agree with this type of critic.
If your theory is true, it assumes that there was a genuine shroud that would have to have been copied. Well, my point is, if the shroud is a high quality copy of an original, it would still have the same significance. It would be “secondary” physical evidence.
BTW - I’ve read all your posts and have researched information on the shroud myself for years. You provide interesting information, but it doesn’t add up and makes no logical sense to me. But, we are free to disagree on this matter.
Blessings
K
Kurt_G
Guest
BibleReader, hello. Surely you realize you haven’t scientifically answered ANY of Spyder’s challenges to your pet theory…(and he didn’t even bring up Dr. Jackson’s VP-8 Analyzer, discovering 3D characteristics of the Shroud image. Photos don’t convey 3D in the same way, when analyzed thru the VP-8)
A few years back we started actually printing out the many published Shroud papers available, all from peer reviewed (boring) scientific journals. A few of the journals required some bucks to register as a web user, and we let some go. But we still had a 5 lb. pile of paper before we knew it, so we started retrieving and storing them on zip. I remember your pet theory being thrown out there for discussion (along with several other “stretched” ideas), but I don’t remember any peer reviewed published data. Post some info if you get a chance., we’ll look at it.
It would be very beneficial to the scientific commmunity to produce a good replica which meets all the Shroud characteristics. Then the argument would be close to over, would it not? Suggest this to your theory friends.
(Of course, I’m betting that the urine/egg white photo will fall short on almost all points. But, hey, I might be wrong. See if you can get someone to try…)
We have bumped into others in the past who:
GOD BLESS US ALL!
A few years back we started actually printing out the many published Shroud papers available, all from peer reviewed (boring) scientific journals. A few of the journals required some bucks to register as a web user, and we let some go. But we still had a 5 lb. pile of paper before we knew it, so we started retrieving and storing them on zip. I remember your pet theory being thrown out there for discussion (along with several other “stretched” ideas), but I don’t remember any peer reviewed published data. Post some info if you get a chance., we’ll look at it.
It would be very beneficial to the scientific commmunity to produce a good replica which meets all the Shroud characteristics. Then the argument would be close to over, would it not? Suggest this to your theory friends.
(Of course, I’m betting that the urine/egg white photo will fall short on almost all points. But, hey, I might be wrong. See if you can get someone to try…)
We have bumped into others in the past who:
- have made up their minds that the Shroud just can’t (or better not) be real, and then
- pick a far-out theory to “prove it” in their own minds.
GOD BLESS US ALL!
- Status