WHAT?!? The Shroud of Turin is not the actual cloth then?!?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paris_Blues
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Something else just triggered memory of some Shroud questions which was never answered for us.
  1. Who actually pressed for C14 testing in the first place?
    I first read it was an Anglican group in Britain, but never could confirm it.
  2. The original protocol for the test required multiple sample sites. That was blatantly violated when only a single sample site was chosen. Don’t blame the Church here, as their representative was being shoved to the back at this point, so I read.
    (You don’t perform C14 on the highest profile, and arguable most important, historical artifact of all time and then violate the protocol without a pretty good reason.)
  3. Supposedly this protocol violation was why the article ended up in Nature Magazine, rather than one of the two recognized radiocarbon journals… it could pass peer review for Nature, but could not pass peer review for those others.
Did anyone out there remember any of this in a similar way?

GOD BLESS US ALL!
 
I can’t seem to find the very beginning history of it! I mean, where was it first discovered? By whom? When?
 
40.png
JimO:
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
Hey, JimO.

There is a respectable chance that somewhere “out there” is the real Shroud of Christ, still being carefully preserved by the family of the thief, or perhaps a buyer from the thief.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
Hey, JimO.

There is a respectable chance that somewhere “out there” is the real Shroud of Christ, still being carefully preserved by the family of the thief, or perhaps a buyer from the thief.
Oh, yes happens all the time. A family has and passes down through the generations a wonderful and extremely sought after religious object and is able to hide the fact for centuries! Not one soul in that family shows it to anyone - including those who marry into the family - or who mentions it to anyone else…not one soul in that family, over the centuries, has enough grace to eventually turn it over to the Church for veneration…ever…

That sort of centuries-old conspiratorial silence through generations, among sinful and greatly flawed people would actually be more of a miracle than the the Shroud itself!
 
Kurt G.:
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:
  1. have made up their minds that the Shroud just can’t (or better not) be real, and then
  2. pick a far-out theory to “prove it” in their own minds.
Are you sure you didn’t make up your mind first, and then go looking for a favorite explanation?
GOD BLESS US ALL!
You are wrong. Spyder did bring up the image analyzer, but without mentioning the name of the device, itself.

Also, your words about the VP-8 Image Analyzer’s read of the Shroud of Turin are wrong. The Shroud itself has never been put in the Image analyzer. A photo of the Shroud generated that 3 dimensional image you are thinking of which created so much excitement.

So, strictly speaking, your words about the inability of the image analyzer to read photos are also wrong.

Before you criticize A for not scientifically rebutting B, get you facts straight, for Heaven’s sake.

In fact, most face photos can’t be read by the image analyzer and converted into 3 dimensional figures.

The Shroud photo could be (although one researcher could not reproduce the result with the same machine). A home-made egg-and-urine photo could also be read by the image analyzer, though not as well. There’s no doubt about it – the Shroud is very high quality.

But, there’s no doubt about it, the egg-and-urine photo run through the Image Analyzer DID have some readable 3-D information in it.

I.e., that Image Analyzer did not decode some kind of mystical quiality endowed by God Himself upon the Shroud.
 
Thanks, Kurt G.! 🙂

Interesting responses, BibleReader. Let’s assume that these Renaissance forgers DID copy the actual Shroud. Then how could they have seen these minute details? As I mentioned in my questions, the the actual image of the Shroud was only seen after Seconda Pia photographed it in the early 1900s. To anyone of the Renaissance period, the Shroud would appear as the faded image of a man on the linen cloth. The coins, the scourge marks, all of these could not be seen until the photograph was taken. Did these forgers also happen to have a functioning camera that took and printed photos?
 
I wholeheartedly agree with Kurt. Let’s see some documents, photos, a website, ANYTHING that offers proof that this test was done in the way you described it. I want proof that this test was done before I really get into contesting it.
 
40.png
JimO:
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
How interesting. I myself have also invested a lot of time into the research of the Shroud and how Christ was actually crucified. Maybe we could have a few discussions on the subject. 🙂
 
40.png
Spyder1jcd:
Thanks, Kurt G.! 🙂

Interesting responses, BibleReader. Let’s assume that these Renaissance forgers DID copy the actual Shroud. Then how could they have seen these minute details? As I mentioned in my questions, the the actual image of the Shroud was only seen after Seconda Pia photographed it in the early 1900s. To anyone of the Renaissance period, the Shroud would appear as the faded image of a man on the linen cloth. The coins, the scourge marks, all of these could not be seen until the photograph was taken. Did these forgers also happen to have a functioning camera that took and printed photos?
Hi, Spyder. As I said before, all kinds of claimants say that they see all kinds of nearly invisible things on the Shroud, now. That is not just rhetoric. Beware of believing something other than the evidence of your own eyes.

Additionally, you are forgetting something – under my analysis, the Shroud itself IS the forgery. Who says that the original Shroud which they were looking at has any hard-to-see characteristics? That it has any is pure assumption on your part.

My personal suspicion is that the real Shroud has an easier-to-see image.
 
40.png
Spyder1jcd:
I wholeheartedly agree with Kurt. Let’s see some documents, photos, a website, ANYTHING that offers proof that this test was done in the way you described it. I want proof that this test was done before I really get into contesting it.
shroud.com/78strp10.htm

I am reluctant to do things like hunt down sites showing that what X says is a cock-and-bull story. Never once, in five years on the web, now, has someone to whom proof was shown said, “Oh! You are right! I was wrong and my words were misleading! You HAVE changed my mind! From now on, I’m thinking the way you think! Thank you for your insights!”
 
40.png
BibleReader:
But, there’s no doubt about it, the egg-and-urine photo run through the Image Analyzer DID have some readable 3-D information in it.
i’m not sure if you perhaps missed it, BibleReader, but i made a few posts a while back today to which you have still made no reply.

can you comment?

thanks,
  • jd
 
john doran:
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
You did not read their book carefully. They also used pee and egg whites, and it worked; they did not only use the Renaisaance-era chemistry they mostly focus on.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
You did not read their book carefully. They also used pee and egg whites, and it worked; they did not only use the Renaisaance-era chemistry they mostly focus on.
so this is the book you’re using as a source?

do you have a response to the criticisms made by the author at the link i posted? it’s not as if any of his arguments depend on picknett and prince actually using urine and egg whites…

incidentally, can you show that the photosensitive medium used by picknett and prince did not include chromium salts? because whether or not they used urine and egg whites, the experiment would be a failure if it depended on the use of a chemical that was not obtainable before the 18th century…
 
40.png
BibleReader:
The Shroud photo could be (although one researcher could not reproduce the result with the same machine). A home-made egg-and-urine photo could also be read by the image analyzer, though not as well. There’s no doubt about it – the Shroud is very high quality.

But, there’s no doubt about it, the egg-and-urine photo run through the Image Analyzer DID have some readable 3-D information in it.
a professor here disagrees with you:

shroudstory.com/faq/Shroud-Turin-Photographic.htm

here’s the relevant passage:

The late Dr. Alan D. Adler, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at Western Connecticut University, in an article entitled, “The Nature of the Body Images on the Shroud of Turin,” comments:

In “Turin Shroud”, Picknett and Prince, assign the image on the Shroud to Leonardo. They propose a photochemical mechanism with sunlight reflected from a statue via optics to image on sheet of cloth charged with a mixture of egg white and chromium salts. As this is an albedo image, it will fail a VP-8 test and there is no chemical or spectroscopic evidence for their chemical sensitizers. They do not deal with the blood image problem. Leonardo may rest easily in his grave.
 
john doran:
so this is the book you’re using as a source?

do you have a response to the criticisms made by the author at the link i posted? it’s not as if any of his arguments depend on picknett and prince actually using urine and egg whites…

incidentally, can you show that the photosensitive medium used by picknett and prince did not include chromium salts? because whether or not they used urine and egg whites, the experiment would be a failure if it depended on the use of a chemical that was not obtainable before the 18th century…
I’ve got a library of about 4,000 books, mostly non-fiction, about 20 of them on the Shroud. I don’t remember if only Clive’s book discusses the camera obscura experiments.

Light-sensitive AMMONIUM salts as opposed to light-sensitive chromium salts were available beginning in the 1200s, at the latest.

No one knows when camera obscuras began to be used. Many claim that it was Leonardo, because he talks lavishly about camera obscuras in the Codex Atlanticus. I remember reading in I-don’t-know-what article that the fish-eye effect in camera obscuras, inverting images, may have been discovered when the light of solar eclipses shown through foliage. As the sun gets eclipsed from the right in the sky, it forms a brilliant “C.” On the ground, observers looking at the sunlight peeking through “pinholes” through the foliage would have seen backwards “Cs.” After I read this, I looked for it, and lo and behold the author is correct – all of those tiny splashes of light peeping through the trees under heavy foliage are inverted images, upside down and backwards.

So, camera obscuras may have been known about for thousands of years.

And, mixing urine with egg whites works.
 
40.png
Spyder1jcd:
How interesting. I myself have also invested a lot of time into the research of the Shroud and how Christ was actually crucified. Maybe we could have a few discussions on the subject. 🙂
Just curious. I presumed from reading your posts that you are a believer and that you believe there did exist a burial shroud of Jesus Christ that was copied - giving rise to the Shroud of Turin. Is this a correct presumption? Are you arguing against the Shroud of Turin’s authenticity based on your review of the data or do you not believe that Jesus was crucified and rose?

Your profile says that you are Catholic and your posts suggest that you are a believer. The reason I ask is that my take on the veracity of your arguments would be very different if you were making them as a believer than if you are not.
 
john doran:
a professor here disagrees with you:

shroudstory.com/faq/Shroud-Turin-Photographic.htm

here’s the relevant passage:

The late Dr. Alan D. Adler, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at Western Connecticut University, in an article entitled, “The Nature of the Body Images on the Shroud of Turin,” comments:

In “Turin Shroud”, Picknett and Prince, assign the image on the Shroud to Leonardo. They propose a photochemical mechanism with sunlight reflected from a statue via optics to image on sheet of cloth charged with a mixture of egg white and chromium salts. As this is an albedo image, it will fail a VP-8 test and there is no chemical or spectroscopic evidence for their chemical sensitizers. They do not deal with the blood image problem. Leonardo may rest easily in his grave.
Do you know what is meant by “albedo image”? It is a normal photographic image containing not just reflected light but also incidental light. It is the reason why normal photos do not work well in the image analyzer.

But, contrary to the absolutest language of the boldface extract, even normal photos work somewhat in the image analyzer, but not well.

The images which Clive and Picknett made for their book are not common albedo images. I recollect that they are almost as reversible as the Shroud image. My recollection is that the negatives of the stuff Clive and Picknett did with junk equipment were about as good as the negatives of the Shroud.

That is why the pro-Shroud zealots, among whom I used to count myself, should relax – good Shroud imitations, with essentially the same reversible image, can now be made with things we pull out of our trash. This is not an exaggeration.

Don’t be so pro-Shroud. Did it ever occur to you that by being too un-balanced in favor of the Shroud, you are hurting your Church? Why do you think that the Church is so cautious about the Shroud?
 
40.png
BibleReader:
Light-sensitive AMMONIUM salts as opposed to light-sensitive chromium salts were available beginning in the 1200s, at the latest.
fair enough. can you provide a reference for the shroud experiment that used such ammonium salts?
40.png
BibleReader:
No one knows when camera obscuras began to be used.
i am familiar with the camera obscura; i am not disputing the chronology of its existence.
BibeReader:
And, mixing urine with egg whites works.
and, again, a reference, please.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
But, contrary to the absolutest language of the boldface extract, even normal photos work somewhat in the image analyzer, but not well.

The images which Clive and Picknett made for their book are not common albedo images. I recollect that they are almost as reversible as the Shroud image. My recollection is that the negatives of the stuff Clive and Picknett did with junk equipment were about as good as the negatives of the Shroud.
ok. but now all we have is your word against the word of the guy on that website.

while your own word and your own recollections may suffice to ground your own convictions, you can perhaps understand why they are not necessarily as compelling for everyone else.
40.png
BibleReader:
Don’t be so pro-Shroud. Did it ever occur to you that by being too un-balanced in favor of the Shroud, you are hurting your Church? Why do you think that the Church is so cautious about the Shroud?
well, i personally don’t really care about the shroud at all; maybe it’s real, maybe it isn’t. whatever.

i am simply curious as to the sources and reliability of your information, which i find interesting. but i need to see it for myself before i can form an opinion.
 
I only know that my mom, sister, BIL and nieces were able to view the Shroud in Italy a few years ago (none of them Catholic). They felt it important to stand in those long lines, and were moved by the image.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top