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

[4_marks]

I suppose it is all a matter of faith.

Some have even argued that the Jesus of the Bible is a composite of various persons and never even existed historically.

 

[BibleReader]

john doran:

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.

I agree, but the consistency of the circle phenomenon with the camera obscura explanation is corroborated by other consistencies.

No neck. I.e., if that is a camera obscura focal circle on the nose, that would be there because using a central focal point like the solar plexus creates too much distortion in the distal regions – far away from the focal point. Lack of a neck because the head is a separate camera obscura photo is consistent with a focal circle on the nose. Ouch.

Lack of 3-D detail below the neck. If you look at image analyzer 3-D images, you’ll notice that whereas the face comes up great, the body image’s 3-D information stinks.

I.e., this would be because somewhere in the central body line in the torso IS the second focal point (some say there is a second focal circle on the solar plexus, though none of my photos are good enough to tell one way or the other) and the distance to significant body detail is so distant from the focal point that camera obscura image distortion kills the detail. I.e., had the entire body been photographed at once, either the face would have been a detail-less smudge, or the feet, if the face were prioritized, would have been invisible.

 

[Numbers2222]

BibleReader:

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?

So, in addition to the other completely absurd conspiratorial premises you ask us to accept in ‘proving’ this was forged, you also ask us to accept:

That the thieving forgers found some poor slob, tortured & crucified him through the wrists and poked holes in his skull, and afterward ‘took his picture’ with a camera obscura on a pee&egg white saturated piece of ancient, 1st century Jerusalem-weave linen, and THEN smeared his actual blood onto it, just so it would have the appropriate stress-induced biliruban on it??

Bible Reader - thy name is Dan Brown.

You may want to check out the new computer enhanced images at www.shroudstory.com/enhanced.htm By removing the images of the actual dark/light weave pattern, a better image of the face appears, including the one recently found in the back. The article addresses the peculiarity of the nose. There is another interesting article addressing the use of shrouds in ancient times, and the formation of dark imaging on them (see “Shroud of Ciaphas”) It is likely a very natural occurrance from the peculiarities of ancient linen washing & starching and contact with the dead in limestone caves.

 

[Kurt_G]

BibleReader - Hello.
Regarding my statements about 3-D characteristics of the Shroud Image, I apologize for a misleading quote… I never intended to suggest that Dr. Jackson carried their 3-D analysis equipment to Italy. He was on the original STURP team of course, but they were playing around with photos of the image some time later back in Colorado, as their interesting videotape shows. I am sorry for that misleading statement.

But please, it seems you used to be heavy into this as I was, and I just asked a couple of honest questions for which you may have a good answer, because I don’t:

1. Who originally asked for C14 anaylsis to be done? (I don’t know)
2. Why was the protocol (for sample site selection) so blatantly violated for such an important study? (Again, I don’t know)

(I am also sorry for the remarks about your library…I really wish I had 4,000 books of my choosing.)

Please don’t get mad, I’m just asking…(but it doesn’t mean I agree with you, of course)
GOD BLESS US ALL!

 

[BibleReader]

Hi, Numbers2222.

Backing out the weave makes the focal circle even rounder.

 

[martino]

BibleReader:

I agree, but the consistency of the circle phenomenon with the camera obscura explanation is corroborated by other consistencies.

No neck. I.e., if that is a camera obscura focal circle on the nose, that would be there because using a central focal point like the solar plexus creates too much distortion in the distal regions – far away from the focal point. Lack of a neck because the head is a separate camera obscura photo is consistent with a focal circle on the nose. Ouch.

Lack of 3-D detail below the neck. If you look at image analyzer 3-D images, you’ll notice that whereas the face comes up great, the body image’s 3-D information stinks.

I.e., this would be because somewhere in the central body line in the torso IS the second focal point (some say there is a second focal circle on the solar plexus, though none of my photos are good enough to tell one way or the other) and the distance to significant body detail is so distant from the focal point that camera obscura image distortion kills the detail. I.e., had the entire body been photographed at once, either the face would have been a detail-less smudge, or the feet, if the face were prioritized, would have been invisible.

I believe that it has already been pointed out that the formation of the blood marks and the creation of the image were two separate events; separate in space and separate in time.

If the image was created with the cloth pulled flat ontop of the body then we would only expect the top surface of the body to be in contact with the cloth, therefore you would not expect to see an image of the neck or other areas of the body that were not in contact with the flat cloth. This explains why their is no image of the neck, the sides of the face or any other lower surfaces of the 3-dementional body in a supine position.

 

[BibleReader]

martino:

I believe that it has already been pointed out that the formation of the blood marks and the creation of the image were two separate events; separate in space and separate in time.

If the image was created with the cloth pulled flat ontop of the body then we would only expect the top surface of the body to be in contact with the cloth, therefore you would not expect to see an image of the neck or other areas of the body that were not in contact with the flat cloth. This explains why their is no image of the neck, the sides of the face or any other lower surfaces of the 3-dementional body in a supine position.

Well, then if the image only formed where it touched the sheet, it should have no 3-D information buried in it at all, right?

 

[Spyder1jcd]

BibleReader:

Well, then if the image only formed where it touched the sheet, it should have no 3-D information buried in it at all, right?

Actually, you’re both wrong. The image was formed along a vertical path, and THAT’S what explains the lack of neck, sides of the face, top of the head, and sides of the body.

 

[Spyder1jcd]

Oh, and BibleReader, you STILL haven’t answered my questions regarding how these forgers could’ve put images such as the scourge marks and Judean plants that would be INVISIBLE UNTIL PHOTOGRAPHED with such accuracy, down to size, shape, and grouping.

 

[martino]

Spyder1jcd:

Actually, you’re both wrong. The image was formed along a vertical path, and THAT’S what explains the lack of neck, sides of the face, top of the head, and sides of the body.

Spyder, I do not doubt your explanation, but could you elaborate on the verticle path… im not exactly sure what you mean by that.

 

[Spyder1jcd]

martino:

Spyder, I do not doubt your explanation, but could you elaborate on the verticle path… im not exactly sure what you mean by that.

OK, basically, the only parts of the supine body that transferred to the frontal image of the Shroud were those parts facing upward with no obstructions to the cloth draped over them. This means that the image was formed straight up from the body to the cloth.

 

[BibleReader]

Spyder1jcd:

Actually, you’re both wrong. The image was formed along a vertical path, and THAT’S what explains the lack of neck, sides of the face, top of the head, and sides of the body.

Spyder, please just LOOK at a Shroud photo. The figure in it is clearly portrayed as lying dead flat (except for the hair, which hangs as though the figure were vertically supported on a peg board). There is TONS of room for a neck to show. There SHOULD BE a neck image, simply LOADED with 3-D information, if the zealous Shroud supporters are right.

Yet, there IS NO NECK.

 

[BibleReader]

Spyder1jcd:

Oh, and BibleReader, you STILL haven’t answered my questions regarding how these forgers could’ve put images such as the scourge marks and Judean plants that would be INVISIBLE UNTIL PHOTOGRAPHED with such accuracy, down to size, shape, and grouping.

Hi, Spyder.

Re “invisible” scourge marks, they are not “invisible” if a photographic negative can pick them up. There is no “magical magic” at work here. Believe me, the scourge marks really are visible – slight, but visible nonetheless – on the Shroud.

How would faint scourge marks have gotten there?

Well, let’s say the team of forgers see Jesus’ scourge marks very, very clearly on the genuine shroud. Then, when it is time to create the fake, the member of the team who is a jailer and executioner scourges the condemned criminal they chose to be their fake Jesus in the camera obscura photo, with a scourge leaving the same kind of scourge marks they see on the real Shroud – but, they don’t photograph too well in the camera obscura.

That is the answer to your question.

Re Judean plants, As I slowly became more and more disillusioned with the Shroud, I read less and less on it, as the years passed.

So, tell us – Where on the Shroud are the remarkable plants from Judea, Israel?

Will you please become a teensy, weensy bit skeptical?

 

[Numbers2222]

BibleReader:

Hi, Numbers2222.

Backing out the weave makes the focal circle even rounder.

And you have never seen a round swelling? You don’t have toddlers, do you? Never seen a marble-round swelling anywhere on another human body which has received a sharp blow? The image also seems to indicate a broken cartilige, and around the protrusion it could have swelled in a round shape. ‘Round’ swelling is not unknown in nature.

Hair that has never seen Pantene or Clarol Herbal Essence shampoo will not fall like it does in the commercials. In ancient times, hair was oiled with scented olive oil before (as the Jews did) a head covering mashed it to the scalp. A man who has been tortured would have a significant amount of sweat and blood dried into his hair, too, making it stiff.

Now, it appears that you think the body was placed in an upright position while being exposed to this camera obscura “upright as on a pegboard” I believe is roughly what you said.

The men of the Renaissance, clever though they were, had no way to circumvent gravity, and the hands are laying very naturally over the body. Had rigor mortis set in at the time of photograpy, the natural-looking position of the hands laying atop the body would have been next to impossible to position and maintain whilst upright because of their stiffness, and gravity would have pulled them downward and likely out to the side. Had it been arranged prior to rigor mortis, and body position more ‘set’, gravity and the weight of the arms would have pulled them significantly enough to call attention to it anyway. Rigor Mortis still follows the laws of gravity, albeit while stiff. The arms would have had to be tied or somehow glued down into position to stay in a natural looking position.

IF the body were laying instead, then how was it possible to get the fabric and primitive camera into the proper position to capture the image? The camera and fabric would have had to be suspended over the body in the proper distances. Even with high ceilings that could accomodate the distance, the light source necessary for exposure is then compromised (and how are adjustments easily made then?) and again you have gravity and a very long swatch of ancient linen in some kind of a frame work to consider. It would have had to be suspended very carefully and exactly indeed.

In fact, the whole scheme falls apart when one thinks that this would have been done (as would be supposed by the limitations of such a very primitive device) frontal image made, and then backside. The image doesn’t change position of legs or feet, or arms or head, and the body would have had to be flipped over, whether horizontal or vertical, without somehow moving any part of it one bit, to capture the back side image so as to be placed exactly as it was in the front (so it looked like the image was laying on the cloth) Things move, and realignment would not have been precise. A back image would have differed somewhat from the front.

If anything, the more you go on with your pet theory, the more skeptical of it I get. It is much, much too flawed to be plausible, even if a coupla guys could reproduce it with junk.

 

[Spyder1jcd]

Goodness, man! You expect us to believe these forgers risked getting away with murder to make a forgery of the Shroud and actually got away with it? And I suppose you expect us to believe they found a man with carpenter-esque muscular build with hair that flows from the center of the scalp, with a Jewish customary beard and the face of a Galilean, who happened to have AB type blood, the rarest in the world. Then, you expect us to believe they scourged him with a Roman flagrum, which they just *happened *to have, crowned him with a cap of thorns containing pollen from a thorn plant exclusive to the Jerusalem and Palestinian area, and which also goes against the traditional view of the common wreathlet and matches the “crown” of Jesus’ time, the mitre, and then made him carry a 150 pound patibulum, then crucified him, and pierced his side with a Roman lancea which they again just *happened *to have. Then, you expect us to believe that they took a cloth with measurements exact to the Aramaic cubit, a form of measurent used in Jesus’ time, covered his body in it to get the blood marks, then coated it with urine and egg whites and put his photograph on it. They also happened to have two Pilate coins to put over his eyes, which would’ve been nearly impossible to have come into their possession. Even if they had a Roman lepton that wasn’t from Pilate’s time they wouldn’t have succeeded since the Pilate coin is the only lepton to have a misspelling of Ceasar on it.

Basically, what you’re saying is that these forgers overcame impossible odds just to make a fake relic. I’m sorry, but that story is JUST PLAIN UNBELIEVABLE.

 

[Spyder1jcd]

BibleReader:

Re Judean plants, As I slowly became more and more disillusioned with the Shroud, I read less and less on it, as the years passed.

So, tell us – Where on the Shroud are the remarkable plants from Judea, Israel?

Will you please become a teensy, weensy bit skeptical?

In the 1980’s Dr. Whanger became so intrigued by the pollen samples taken from the Shroud that he searched underexposing photographs for flower and plant images. Lo and behold, in 1985, Whanger found a flower image near the head. He continued to find images, and eventually identified 28 species of Israeli plants. Of these twenty eight, twenty seven grow within the close vicinity of Jerusalem, where four geographical areas containing different specific climates and flora can be found. In case you’re wondering, the twenty eighth grows and the south end of the Dead Sea. Only three of these plants grow in France and nine grow in Italy, and half are found only in the Middle East or other similar areas and never in Europe.

And in response to your second question, no. There is far too much compelling evidence suggesting the Shroud’s authenticity for me to be skeptical.

 

[martino]

Biblereader- You may have already told us but I haven’t read every single post in this thread so I am going to have to ask again.

1)You seem to believe that there was a true shroud with the image of Jesus on it; why do you believe that such a shroud ever existed since there is no evidence of it now?

2)If the Shourd of Turin that we have today is a carefully and meticulously crafted replica of the original, as you say; how can you discredit this replica on the grounds that it doesn’t look authentic to you? According to your theory the forgers had the original shroud to copy from while you on the other hand have never seen this supposed original.

1. If your theory of how this “forgery” came to be is accurate; how do you know that it is not identical to the original. Maybe the forgers did not give their shroud a neck image because the original did not have a neck image. How would you know? And if you dont know; how is the lack of neck image considered evidence that it is fake?

 

[BibleReader]

1)You seem to believe that there was a true shroud with the image of Jesus on it; why do you believe that such a shroud ever existed since there is no evidence of it now?

Hi, Martino.

(a) While the Shroud clearly suffers from a perfectly symmetrical ring on the nose bridge, which looks *exactly * like the focal ring left behind by a camera obscura, the Shroud is also impressive in certain ways – too impressive, in my opinion, for people to guess at.

If the ring and lack of 3-D detail farther away from the ring indicates that the Shroud is indeed fake, the impressive characteristics of the Shroud indicate that it was copied from a really, really good relic.

(b) There is clearly “Shroud history” “out there.” There is the relationship of Jesus and Abgar, King of Edessa, in the famous “Epistle of Jesus.” That corroborates stories about the “Mandylion” and “Image of Edessa.” A church in Byzantium clearly appears to have been built to house and display a Shroud. Ste. Chapelle on Isle de Paris – perhaps the world’s most beautiful chapel – appears to have been built to house and display the Shroud after it was stolen from Byzantium, but before the Shroud was stolen en route from Byzantium.

If the Shroud of Turin ain’t “it,” then there’s clearly another.

 

[BibleReader]

2)If the Shourd of Turin that we have today is a carefully and meticulously crafted replica of the original, as you say; how can you discredit this replica on the grounds that it doesn’t look authentic to you? According to your theory the forgers had the original shroud to copy from while you on the other hand have never seen this supposed original.

The Last Supper fresco looks very, very, very authentic.

Suppose, as that fresco is being restored, the restorer finds another similar-but-different version of the same painting beneath, crossed-out, and a note signed by Nicholas Poussin, over Leonardo’s Last Supper but beneath the current Last Supper, saying that he, Poussin, had been instructed to paint a new Last Supper over Leonardo’s, and he apologizes for the forgery.

Well, The Last Supper by Poussin would be no less impressive. But, it would still be a forgery.

That is my attitude toward the Shroud.

 

[BibleReader]

3) If your theory of how this “forgery” came to be is accurate; how do you know that it is not identical to the original. Maybe the forgers did not give their shroud a neck image because the original did not have a neck image. How would you know? And if you dont know; how is the lack of neck image considered evidence that it is fake?

It is unreasonable to believe that God would leave a perfectly round camera obscura image on the nose of a non-camera obscura picture of His Son. So, it is unreasonable to believe that the original Shroud is perfectly identical to a forged Shroud of Turin.

The lack of a neck image on the Shroud of Turin, as evidence of fraud, is corroborated by a very, very, very, very clear nose ring, also evidence of fraud.

A real shroud of Jesus just wouldn’t have that corroboration.