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.
40.png
BibleReader:
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?
Click to expand...
Now this is getting very amusing. “Shroud Proud Zealots”! You, perhaps, do not see, your own special brand of zealousness in your own posts? It goes beyond making primitive photographs on junk.

What you are actually asking everyone else to believe is:

The real Shroud was stolen, hidden in total silent obscurity by a thieving family and no one outside that family knows it; that the miracle of urine & egg white photography was discovered, used and discarded merely to steal a relic the thief never intended to show anyone; and that during the Renaisannce, when ideas were flowing freely about in the art & intellectual world and money was to be made everywhere by both science and art, a discovery like primitive photography would remain hidden by everyone but a petty thief - who supposedly wouldn’t have dared find a way to use this wonderful discovery to profit in some other way in some other country than Italy? A very clever thief with an excellent background in chemistry, too, who would have had the time to get the egg and pee mixture just right, and the exposure, too, (after figuring out that it would happen) and leave no trace of this mixture discernable in the fabric.

The thief would then have had to find a piece of first-century woven linen specific to the region of Jerusalem (which we know the shroud fabric is, since a good sample of cloth with this specific weave just like the shroud’s has been found recently in Masada and no where else outside that region, nor is that specific weave found after 70 AD - that pattern seems to have died out with the Holy City. Not to mention the pollen.)

Oh yes, and that thief would also have bothered to steal somehow into Oviedo, Spain, get into the reliquery box, glean from the Sudarium the number and placement of thorn-wounds, as well as the length of the nose and (somehow, before anything about blood was really understood) figured out the blood type on that relic, just to forge the fake? Or did they steal the Sudarium, too, and fake the one in Spain - since the recent studies on the Sudarium show that both fabrics have very specific points that match exactly?

And not one person in all of history knows a thing about any of it except the one silent thief and his progeny?

Good heavens, man, do you know how utterly bizarre and irrational THAT sounds?!

While the Shroud of Turin is not relevant to the Faith other than as an accessory or meditation at least, and a silent witness at the best, the story woven by those who must believe it is a fake is more unbelievable and zealous, in my never humble opinion than those who believe the evidence of its authenticity.
 
Wow, this is great… just like the old Shroud Forum Days!
Numbers2222 laid some hard, but necessary, stuff on you, BibleReader. I don’t want to be rash either, I just want to post an opposing opinion:
40.png
BibleReader:
…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.
Click to expand...
It’s when you make statements like above that we have to shake you up a little…You might have some backup for your opinion, that’s fine… we’ll look at it… but you’ve gotta give it to us!
We’re just mildly interested in the size of your library. We’re more interested in looking at scientific studies and commentaries, like this one…http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/orvieto.pdf

“Is the Shroud of Turin a Medieval Photograph?”
A Critical Examination of the Theory, by Barrie M. Schwortz.

You probably have this paper in your library. It’s pretty hard on your theory. You probably read it, and must obviously disagree with it, but at least it’s somewhat of a scientific rebuttal. If your theory leans on anything done by Prof. Nicholas Allen, then you might lead us to some site locations so that others can read what Allen actually did. He got an image, no doubt about it. Dr. August Accetta got an image too, with his radiation experiments. And no doubt, a crew of researchers favoring either theory could make continuous improvements with their image formation, until both of them would cover many of the problems on the Shroud.

But neither proto-photograhy nor radiation, nor any other theory, will be recognized as the final answer, until the theory answers ALL the challenges on the Shroud. (psst…Don’t bet on proto-photography)
40.png
BibleReader:
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.
Click to expand...
See, this is the kind of statement that is just asking for rebuttals, BR. You may be right, I think you’re not, just point us to a scientific post somewhere, that’s all you’ve gotta do!
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?
Click to expand...
And don’t be so anti-Shroud either! You really sound like the anti-zealot here. We’re not the ones saying we are dead sure how the image was formed…you are!

And now, since you were heavy into it, and may know answers to my inquiries, I sincerely ask your opinion on:
  1. Who originally asked for the C14 test to be run?
  2. Why was the protocol (regarding site selections) so violated for such an important undertaking?
    I never found good answers to these, BibleReader, but maybe you remember… just answer when you can.
GOD BLESS US ALL!
 
Hi, Kurt.

Kurt, up above you posted this…

**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.**

Despite these allegations, I posted this hyperlink…

shroud.com/78strp10.htm

What does it say in that hyperlink?

It says that the thing that created the famous 3-dimensional VP-8 Image Analyzer image of the Shroud wasn’t the Shroud, BUT A PHOTO OF THE SHROUD.

So, these particular words by YOU…

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
…are simply dead wrong.

Now, you don’t say, “Hmmmmmmmmm. You’re correct! I was shooting off my mouth! I didn’t know what I was talking about! My words were dead wrong. I’m sorry! Suddenly, I agree with you, on those points!”

Instead, you make a hundred other excessively enthusiastic points supporting the Shroud.

I’m not going to cater to the demands of some one who won’t admit basics. Forget it.

I love you, brother, but you’re not tuned in.
 
40.png
JimO:
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.
Click to expand...
Quite the contrary. If you read my posts, you will find that I am fervently DEFENDING the current Shroud’s authenticity. I believe that the image was the result of none other than the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Just wanted to clear things up! 🙂
 
I’m sorry, BibleReader, but practically basing your whole arguement on a barely recognizable circle on the nose that could be the result of anything and a photo processed through a VP8 Image Analyzer isn’t very convincing and won’t sway me at all.

You also failed to answer these unique characteristics of the Shroud that these alleged “photographers” had to have included:

*A yellowed body image out of chemically degraded cellulose with conjugated carbonyls that has resulted from processes associated with dehydration and oxidation

*The sublte appearance of Judean plants in the off-image area of the Shroud that would not be seen for more than six centuries

*And of course, the 120+ scourge marks that could not be seen until the photograph was taken by Seconda Pia, which match exactly in size and shape the Roman flagrum

I suppose these “photographers” degraded the cloth and image so that it appeared to have been affected by dehydration and oxidation, and that they somehow placed images that they themselves could not see but that would be seen centuries later by an instrument that never existed during their lifetime.

Combine that with the ludicrous idea that the actual Shroud was passed down generations by a wealthy family and kept in hiding all this time leaves us a story with more holes than swiss cheese.
 
john doran:
also, a broken nose.

good advice. is that how you would describe your own position? cautious?
Click to expand...
John, look at the circle.

It’s a CIRCLE.

Not a break.

Not a bloody smudge.

Not a scabby scab.

It’s a CIRCLE.

It’s unnatural.

It’s what Cline and Picknett produced with equipment made of homemade JUNK.

And, believe me – I love the Shroud. The evidence for it is wonderful. Aside from the evidence against it which is TROUBLING.

The circle on the nose, the lack of a neck, the excessively long dorsal image, the elongation of distal appendages, unfortunately all go together.

The thing which joins them together is this…

Camera Obscura
 
would it be possible for you to post the passage of the book where they say they don’t use bichromate salts? i continue to search, but all i kind find about the urine is that it is added to the egg whites and bichromate in order to make the solution char at a lower temperature.

i continue to be unable to find anything about light-sensitive ammonium salts.

thanks.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
John, look at the circle.

It’s a CIRCLE.

Not a break.

Not a bloody smudge.

Not a scabby scab.

It’s a CIRCLE.

It’s unnatural.
Click to expand...
well, i’ve looked, and i just don’t find the circle all that compellingly mystifying; the camera obscura explanation may be consistent with the phenomenon, but it certainly doesn’t strike me as uniquely explanatory of it.
 
BibleReader:

The “circle,” the “lack of neck,” all of these things are the result of the way the image itself was formed. The darker spots of the Shroud don’t indicate that nothing was there. The intensity of the image is based on distance from the body to the Shroud. Think about it. The cloth would’ve been raised at the tip of the nose. Combine that with the possibility of swelling and breakage in the bridge area, and that would explain the circle. Also, think about how close the tip of the nose is to the chest. During crucifixion, the victim’s chest would swell with his lungs and heart. This is clear on the Shroud. What lies between the raised point of the nose and the raised pectorals? THE NECK. It’s not missing. It just wasn’t read. Look at the scourge marks in that area. They are fainter than the other marks on the body. This is consistent with the idea that the image was made while the body and the cloth were suspended in midair. That explains why the buttocks aren’t mashed on the dorsal image. THIS IMAGE WAS MADE DURING THE RESURRECTION.
 
Also, the “elongated digits” are not really elongated. Why did Medeival artists depict Jesus with long fingers? Because the hands and the feet of the Man on the Shroud were encoded as some sort of X-ray image. These “elongated digits” are just the bones of the metatarsals.
 
Also try to explain this. The blood on the Shroud was found to contain bilirubin, a pigment released in a human body under extreme stress. So, unless these copycats somehow found the AB blood of an extremely stressed out man, there is no other way they could’ve pulled it off.
 
40.png
Spyder1jcd:
Quite the contrary. If you read my posts, you will find that I am fervently DEFENDING the current Shroud’s authenticity. I believe that the image was the result of none other than the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Just wanted to clear things up! 🙂
Click to expand...
Sorry Spyder, I misunderstood your response to be from BibleReader and was directing my inquiry to him/her. I believe that the Shroud of Turin is genuine and do not buy in to BibleReader’s hypothesis.

BibleReader - You never responded to my original comment. I must say, however, that I agree with you in that I don’t think that believers should treat the Shroud as anything more than an amazing relict. We have a much greater miracle on every altar of every Catholic Mass around the world. Its siginificance is for potentially drawing non-believers to the Lord. This is the role of all true miracles. As my Pastor is fond of saying, “Signs and wonders are not for the faithful, but for non-believers.”
 
40.png
Spyder1jcd:
Also try to explain this. The blood on the Shroud was found to contain bilirubin, a pigment released in a human body under extreme stress. So, unless these copycats somehow found the AB blood of an extremely stressed out man, there is no other way they could’ve pulled it off.
Click to expand...
Spyder, there is an appearance that the Shroud is a camera obscura picture of an actual tortured, executed man. If they borrow some of his blood to “spruce-up” the Shroud, of course it is going to be the blood of an extremely stressed man.

Who said that Shroud forgers are nice people, who avoid using actual dead people to make their fake?
 
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
Click to expand...
Hi, JimO.

I saw this, but it was a fairly good, well-balanced comment, with which I largely do not disagree.

In fact, I would like the Shroud to be “the Real McCoy,” but it’s just not a good enough of a case. The camera obscura shot generated by Clive and Picknett (and I read that others have been able to reproduce the results) are just too good an explanation for the Shroud. In fact, the image they reproduced had positive/negative reversibility, supposedly the Shroud’s most amazing characteristic. I.e., as a negative, it looks like a good positive of Christ.

The nose focal ring on the Shroud, the lack of the neck, the head’s microcephalia (about 7%), the longer dorsal image, the elongation of distal appendages all add up to, “Be cautious! Don’t affirm genuineness!”

I don’t say that the Shroud CAN’T be genuine.

But I think that it’s a mistake to go beyond the Church’s position, by affirming genuineness.
 
40.png
Spyder1jcd:
http://www.shroudstory.com/faq/bryce140.jpg

There ya go, Reader. Look at the bridge of the nose. This is a Bryce Software generated terrain map of the Shroud face. You can clearly see that the “circle” is just a swelling, or possibly a broken nose.
Click to expand...
It’s a CIRCLE. If you cut it off and traced a line around it, you’d have a perfect CIRCLE around the size of a nickle.

Look at it, and ask, "Hmmmmmmmmmmm – that’s so ROUND!!! COULD that be a camera obscura aperture?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top