Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,358 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,722,924
Pageviews Today: 2,388,299Threads Today: 600Posts Today: 11,970
07:36 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

The Shroud of Turin: An Update

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 904504
United States
03/22/2010 11:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
The Shroud of Turin: An Update
[link to www.shroudstory.com]

No One Can Explain Shroud of Turin Pictures of Jesus
I must admit, with some embarrassment, that until a few years ago I knew nothing about the Shroud of Turin. And when I first did read about it, while on a flight to Miami, I laughed out loud, something I rarely do alone in the company of strangers.

How ridiculous, I remember thinking. How can anyone think the Shroud of Turin is real: the actual burial shroud of Jesus? The fact that the Shroud of Turin has an image on it, believed to be a picture of Christ, made it seem beyond preposterous.

I was reading Desire of the Everlasting Hills, Thomas Cahill’s book about the apostolic era. Having enjoyed Cahill’s previous best seller, The Gifts of the Jews, I thought I would enjoy his newest book. And I was enjoying it. Suddenly, with no logical reason that I could see, Cahill introduced the Shroud of Turin. It might have been a treasure of the early church, he thought. That is when I laughed -- out loud.

I remember being surprised that I knew so little about the Shroud of Turin. Then in my mid-fifties, I had always been an avid reader of history, particularly early church history. I could not recall ever reading anything about the Shroud of Turin. It was so far from being something I cared about that I never paid it any attention. Thus, when in 1979, Walter McCrone, a world renowned forensic microscopist, claimed that he found paint on a few Shroud fibers, I didn’t notice the story. McCrone, having noted that the shroud had suddenly appeared in 1356 in the hands of a French knight who would not say where it came from and that a local bishop soon thereafter claimed that an artist “cunningly painted” it, declared it a painted fake. Had I noticed the story in 1979, I would have certainly accepted his conclusion. It would have made sense to me.

A decade later, when three radiocarbon dating laboratories, using carbon 14 dating, supposedly proved the Shroud of Turin was medieval, I didn’t notice. Had I, I would have certainly accepted the conclusion. I trust science. I did then, and more than ever, I do now.

Moreover, I am naturally skeptical about any relic with a historical footprint in medieval Europe. The year 1356 was a time of unbridled superstition in demons, witches, magic, and miracle-working relics. It was a time of frequent famine and the Black Death plague. It was a time of extreme economic and political turbulence and of war. The same year that the Shroud was first displayed publicly in the small French village of Lirey, nearby, at the battle of Poitiers, England’s Black Prince defeated the French and captured King John II. Adding to the political turmoil, the Pope was in Avignon, not Rome. Indicative of the thinking in this age, some believed that the plague was God’s retribution on the whole world because the Pope was not in the eternal city. In this climate of superstition, naiveté and disorder a lucrative market in false relics flourished. And though the Fourth Lateran Council, in 1215, acknowledged the problem, church authorities did little to curb the market in them. Our knowledge of this time in history rightly conditions us to be suspicious of any relic that might appear in Europe at this time. But I had not noticed its history, either. In metaphoric parlance, the Shroud of Turin was never a blip on my radar screen. And it would have likely remained that way were it not for a single enigmatic fact that Cahill mentioned: the picture on the Shroud of Turin was a negative.

I knew something about the subject of negatives. But rather than marveling at this fact, I doubted it. I was so convinced that the Shroud of Turin was a fake that I doubted the images were negatives. I had to see for myself.
I was certain that no artist, no craftsman, no faker of relics, could possibly paint a negative of a human face. To do so is like trying to write your signature upside down and backwards. Our minds are programmed for the way we see things in the world; a world where black is black and white is white. It is relatively easy, with talent and training, to paint a picture of what we see in the world. And an artist, if he is imaginative, like Picasso, can alter that perception in stylistic ways. But the one thing he cannot easily do is to perfectly reverse black and white and all the darker and lighter shades of grey while painting a face.

But imagine, for just a moment, that he could. How would he know he had done it correctly without technology to test his results? A more profound questions is why? In an age so undemanding as the medieval, when any sliver of wood could pass as a piece of the "true cross" and any bramble as a piece of the "crown of thorns," why bother?

Photographic film, invented less than 200 years ago, creates good negative images. And because that is so, it was finally discovered that the shroud image was a negative when it was first photographed in 1898. Along with new scientific-quality photographs, taken in 1978 and again in 2002, extraordinary details were noticed: contusions and anatomical detail only a modern pathologist could understand. Our minds don't easily see details in negatives. It is beyond preposterous to think that the Shroud of Turin was painted.

Because the picture was a negative, some have speculated that the Shroud of Turin might be a medieval proto-photograph; an invention, if you believe it, that was used only once for a single fourteen-foot long fraud, and never mentioned or used again until it was reinvented in an age of science. Such speculation is moot. Scientific data conclusively proves that it is not a photograph.

So entrenched was my skepticism, it would take me a year to change my mind about the Shroud of Turin. I learned that McCrone’s identification of paint was a subjective judgment. More sensitive tests, some undertaken at the National Science Foundation Mass Spectrometry Center of Excellence at the University of Nebraska, proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, McCrone was wrong.

Starting in 2003, new evidence began to appear in secular, peer-reviewed, scientific journals that supported the Shroud of Turin's authenticity. From these journals we learn that the outermost fibers of the cloth are coated with a layer of starch fractions and various saccharides. In places, the coating has turned into a caramel-like substance, thus forming the images. This suggests a chemical reaction took place. We learn, also, of a faint second image of the face on the backside of the cloth. The second face supports the idea of a chemical reaction and adds more proof that the image is not a work of art or a photograph. And in 2005, we learned that the carbon 14 dating was flawed. In fact we learned that the cloth could very well be 2000 years old.

History and the Shroud of Turin
As science moved forward, new historical information was coming to light. Indeed, there is evidence that the cloth, now called the Shroud of Turin, really was a treasure of the early church; not the Pauline communities with which we are so familiar, but the Church in the East. Edessa, in the Fertile Crescent of the upper Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and the Euphrates, was a major city on the Silk Road and undoubtedly one of the earliest Christian communities. If you traveled from Jerusalem to Antioch, you were two thirds of the way to Edessa. Turn left to go to Tarsus, turn right for Edessa. There is some evidence and a strong tradition that Thomas and Thaddeus Jude (Thaddeus of the 70, Thaddeus of Edessa) went to Edessa as early as 33 CE. There is a legend that they carried with them a cloth bearing an image of Jesus. In 544 CE, a cloth, with an image believed to be Jesus, was found above one of Edessa's gates in the walls of the city, a cloth that Gregory Referendarius of Constantinople would later describe with a full length image and bloodstains. There is strong evidence that the Edessa cloth is in fact the Shroud of Turin. Numerous writings, drawings, icons, pollen spores and limestone dust attest to this.

How curious these poetic words from the apocryphal Thomasine literature of Edessa seem. They are from the "Hymn of the Pearl," a poem arguably as old as the first half of the first century. As a figure of speech, Jesus, in the poem, is musing in the first person:
But all in the moment I faced it / This robe seemed to me like a mirror,
And in it I saw my whole self / Moreover I faced myself facing into it.
For we were two together divided / Yet in one we stood in one likeness.

These words resonate with the two head-to-head images we see seemingly reflected on the Shroud of Turin: like a mirror . . . my whole self . . . faced myself facing into it . . . we were two together divided . . . stood in one likeness.

Carbon 14 and the Shroud of Turin
The big issue was always the carbon 14 dating that seemed to show that the Shroud of Turin was medieval. Researchers, who were not experts in radiocarbon dating, but nonetheless convinced the Shroud of Turin was authentic, tried to explain why the scientific dating was incorrect. These explanations – one was that a fire in 1532 changed the age of the Shroud, another was that a bioplastic-polymer growing on the Shroud contaminated the sample – lacked scientific credibility. Scientists, who were experts in radiocarbon dating, rejected these explanations.

Photomicrograph of fibers from warp segment of carbon 14 sample. It is chemically unlike the rest of the shroud. That is a problem.

In January, 2005, things changed. An article appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta, which proved that the carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin was flawed because the sample used was invalid. Moreover, this article, by Raymond N. Rogers, a well-published chemist and a Fellow of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, explained why the Shroud of Turin was much older. The Shroud of Turin was at least twice as old as the radiocarbon date, and possibly 2000 years old.

Peer-reviewed scientific journals are important. It is the way scientists normally report scientific findings and theories. Articles submitted to such journals are carefully reviewed for adherence to scientific methods and the absence of speculation and polemics. Reviews are often anonymous. Facts are checked and formulas are examined. The review procedure sometimes takes months to complete, as it did for Rogers.

It was Nature, another prestigious peer-reviewed journal, that in 1989, reported that carbon 14 dating ‘proved’ the shroud was a hoax. Rogers found no fault with the article in Nature. Nor did he find fault with the quality of the carbon 14 dating. He defended it. What Rogers found was that the carbon 14 sample was taken from a mended area of the Shroud that contained significant amounts of newer material. This was not the fault of the radiocarbon laboratories. But it did show that the carbon dating was invalid.
Immediately after the publication of Rogers’ paper, Nature published a commentary by scientist-journalist Philip Ball. "Attempts to date the Turin Shroud are a great game,” he wrote, “but don't imagine that they will convince anyone . . . The scientific study of the Turin Shroud is like a microcosm of the scientific search for God: it does more to inflame any debate than settle it.” Later in his commentary Ball added, “And yet, the shroud is a remarkable artifact, one of the few religious relics to have a justifiably mythical status. It is simply not known how the ghostly image of a serene, bearded man was made.”

Yellow dye can be seen from spliced thread. Newer material was dyed with alizarin from madder root to match age-yellowed older thread.
Ball, who understood the chemistry of the Shroud of Turin images, rejected a notion popularized by conspiracy theorists that Leonardo da Vinci created the Shroud's image using primitive photography. He called the idea flaky. He also debunked the sometimes reported speculation that the image was “burned into the cloth by some kind of release of nuclear energy” from Jesus’ body. This he said was wild.

Almost all serious Shroud of Turin researchers agree with Ball on these points. When flaky and wild ideas appear in newspaper articles or on television, as they often do, scientists cringe. Rogers referred to those who held such views as being part of the “lunatic fringe” of Shroud research. But Rogers was just as critical of those who, without the benefit of solid science, declared the Shroud of Turin a fake. They, too, were part of the lunatic fringe.

The idea that the Shroud of Turin had been mended in the area from which the carbon 14 samples had been taken had been floating around for some time. But no one paid much attention. In 1998, Turin’s scientific adviser, Piero Savarino, suggested, “extraneous substances found on the samples and the presence of extraneous thread (left over from ‘invisible mending’ routinely carried on in the past on parts of the cloth in poor repair)” might have accounted for an error in the carbon 14 dating. Longtime shroud researchers Sue Benford and Joe Marino independently developed the same idea and explored it with several textile experts and Ronald Hatfield of the radiocarbon dating firm Beta Analytic. The art of invisible reweaving, Benford and Marino discovered, was commonly used in the Middle Ages to repair tapestries. Why not the shroud, they thought? They believed they saw evidence of it.

Photomicrograph of fibers from the center of the radiocarbon sample in water. Gum material is swelling and detaching from fibers. Chemical tests show that dye is yellow alizarin from madder root complexed with alum, a common mordant. Several cotton fibers are also visible. Cotton, alizarin and gum are only found in the C14 sample area of the shroud.

But the skeptically minded Rogers did not agree. He had already debunked every other argument so far offered to explain why the carbon 14 dating might be wrong. According to Ball, “Rogers thought that he would be able to ‘disprove [the mending] theory in five minutes’.” Instead he found clear evidence of discreet mending. He also showed, with chemistry, that the shroud was at least thirteen hundred years old. And he proved, beyond any doubt, that the sample used in 1988 was chemically unlike the rest of the shroud. The samples were invalid. The 1988 tests were thus meaningless.
In words that seem strange in a scientific journal that once had bragging rights to claim that the shroud was not authentic, Ball wrote: “And of course 'authenticity' is not really a scientific issue at all here: even if there were compelling evidence that the shroud was made in first-century Palestine, that would not even come close to establishing that the cloth bears the imprint of Christ.”

Ball, who was familiar with the evidence, had confirmed what all shroud researchers had been saying for years: the images were not painted. Moreover, a 2003 article in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Melanoidins by Rogers and Anna Arnoldi, a chemistry professor at the University of Milan, demonstrated that the images were in fact a chemical caramel-like darkening of an otherwise clear starch and polysaccharide coating on some of the shroud’s fibers. They suggested a natural phenomenon might be the cause. If this could be proven, the images could be explained in non-miraculous, scientific terms.

Shroud of Turin Second Face
The Shroud of Turin images may not the direct result of a miracle, at least not in a traditional sense of the word. But they are not manmade either. These seem to be the contradictory conclusions from an article in the peer-reviewed, scientific Journal of Optics (April 14, 2004) of the Institute of Physics in London. Using mathematical image enhancement technology, Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolo, researchers at the University of Padua in Italy, discovered a faint image of a second face on the back of the Shroud of Turin. This has since been confirmed with other software. The implications are explosive and exciting.

This supports a hypothesis that the Shroud of Turin's image is the result of a very natural, complex chemical reaction between amines (ammonia derivatives) emerging from a body and saccharides within a carbohydrate residue that covers the fibers of the Shroud of Turin. The color producing chemical process is called a Maillard reaction. This is fully discussed in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, Melanoidins, a journal of the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (EU, Volume 4, 2003).

Phase-contrast photomicrograph of a fiber and its image bearing coating. The coating is composed of starch fractions and saccharides.
The proposal, by chemist Raymond E. Rogers and Anna Arnoldi of the University of Milan, is hypothetical. But the chemical and physical nature of the Shroud of Turin's images is pure scientific fact.
Imagine slicing a human hair lengthwise, from end to end, into 100 long thin slices; each slice one-tenth the width of a single red blood cell. The images on the Shroud of Turin, at their thickest, are this thin. In selective places, an otherwise clear layer of starch fractions and saccharides, a mere 200 to 600 nanometers thick, as thin as the wall of a soap bubble, has undergone a chemical change into a caramel colored substance. Spectral and chemical analysis reveal that the chromophores of the Shroud of Turin's images are complex, conjugated carbon bonds.

Whatever the Turin Shroud is, it is not a medieval fake relic.
Just as modern Christianity is a tapestry of diverse traditions stretched taut between the polarities of unwavering biblical literalism and unbridled modern revisionism, modern beliefs and arguments about the Shroud of Turin are drawn tight between those who seek from it some proof of the Resurrection and those who are rigidly skeptical. Could it be that the answer is a via media, a middle way, a reasoned embrace of the facts that implies a resurrection but does not prove or define it. For a burial shroud to survive, the tomb had to be open. There is just enough confusion to preserve the freedom to believe short of certainty: meaning faith.

If the Shroud of Turin is genuine, it presents us with more mystery and paradox than clarity. That, however, is not so perplexing as it is exciting in an age of diverse beliefs and traditions.
[link to www.shroudstory.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 699917
United States
03/22/2010 11:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Shroud of Turin: An Update
I guess you do care, a LOT, about physical proof.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 904504
United States
03/22/2010 11:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Shroud of Turin: An Update
I guess you do care, a LOT, about physical proof.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 699917


How does this show that I care about physical proof of the existence of Jesus. The study of the shroud does is not about proving if he existed, it is about a possible supernatural image on a shroud. I found an article and is an interesting update. Again, this has nothing to do about your statement on another thread regarding physical proof of Jesus existing. I covered that statement in great detail. I merely created a thread to share an article that offers some updated information that I myself did not know about regarding carbon dating, etc. and clearly labeled it as an update about the shroud, not proof of anything.

I am sorry that sharing information so offends you. Feel free to disregard anything I post from here on out. Goodbye.
rav
User ID: 753795
United States
03/22/2010 11:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Shroud of Turin: An Update
The Urantia book, in the section on Jesus, explains why there was the reverse negative effect on the shroud. I found the whole section to be extremely interesting, since no other books talked about the life of Jesus from the age of 12 until he was baptized by John.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 904504
United States
03/22/2010 11:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Shroud of Turin: An Update
The Urantia book, in the section on Jesus, explains why there was the reverse negative effect on the shroud. I found the whole section to be extremely interesting, since no other books talked about the life of Jesus from the age of 12 until he was baptized by John.
 Quoting: rav 753795


Thank you rav. I have not read what you are referring to, but I will. Thank you for at least making an effort to share knowledge with me.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 904504
United States
03/22/2010 11:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Shroud of Turin: An Update
I guess you do care, a LOT, about physical proof.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 699917


Still no knowledge you would like to share with me? You stated in the other thread that Christians would be "REAL surprised", with real in capital letters. I am glad to read what you know, but you do not seem to think it is very important.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 904504
United States
03/22/2010 11:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Shroud of Turin: An Update
I guess you do care, a LOT, about physical proof.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 699917


Just for clarification about what I am referring to regarding the above AC. We met on another thread...

OP:
AND JESUS CHRIST IS REAL (was real) AND HE IS COMING BACK SHORTLY!



Anonymous Coward 699917
Oh, I don't doubt Christ was real. But I think Christians are gonna be REAL surprised when they find out how much they have been lied to about what he really said and did.

Myself:
That statement is meaningless. You are more enlightened than we are? Then enlighten us rather than stating that we are going to be "REAL surprised", and how do you know that we have been lied to about what he really said and did. You know what information that we do not have access to that you do? Fine, bring it... done with this messing around and people acting like they are "light beings" that know the truth. You are a human and so am I, so bring it on... details

Anonymous Coward 699917
No, thanks. If you can't do your own homework and read ALL of the Gospels, I'm not gonna discuss religion with you.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 699917

Myself:
This was your response... so you say you know more than we do, state that we have not done our own homework, and then deny to share what "knowledge" you have that we do not, and then say you are not going to discuss religion with me.

I do not care a bit about religion, I care about knowledge and in particular the knowledge that you state that I do not have! So again, share your wisdom or be gone!


Now, I am still waiting to find out this bit of information, "But I think Christians are gonna be REAL surprised when they find out how much they have been lied to about what he really said and did". If I made this statement and felt this way, I would want to share the information that I have that others do not.

I am still waiting...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 923290
United States
03/23/2010 12:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Shroud of Turin: An Update
wait. whats wrong with caring a lot about strong physical proof? is there a better kind of proof?


Yay for SCIENCE!!! banana2
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 904504
United States
03/23/2010 07:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Shroud of Turin: An Update
wait. whats wrong with caring a lot about strong physical proof? is there a better kind of proof?


Yay for SCIENCE!!! banana2
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 923290


I understand & I agree. My response to the AC centered around his statement on another thread that I was very concerned about physical proof that Jesus EXISTED. I replied that none of what I find interesting is about needing proof He existed. I look to creation as the only example of proof I need that God exists, and I have faith that Jesus is messiah. I also agree that there is nothing wrong with proof of the work of God, in any and all forms. The Word covers this clearly. Because of this, I have no problem with examining such possible examples as the shroud, but it is not "proof" such as this that I base my faith upon.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 918528
United States
03/23/2010 07:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Shroud of Turin: An Update
It isn't Jesus.
It's Appolonius of Tyanna.

See for yourself.
[link to www.apollonius.net]

Apollonius was a real person.
Jesus wasn't.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 918528
United States
03/23/2010 07:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Shroud of Turin: An Update
It is Mediaeval because that is when ther person died.

There are not records of history beyond the year 900AD.
It was all faked by Scaliger and Petraeus.
The printing press was invented at this time and History became a big popular item. And there were plenty of folks willing to write it. There were also artisans who produced "ancient" statues and other items.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 911708
United Kingdom
03/23/2010 07:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Shroud of Turin: An Update
"Scientific data conclusively proves that it is not a photograph."


It does no such thing!

Scientists are simply wrong in thinking that photo-sensitive chemicals were unknown to alchemists in the Middle Ages. They are constantly underestimating the knowledge and skills of people prior to the "official date" of a scientific discovery as recorded in history books. Leonardo da Vinci knew about the camera obscura, writing about it in one of his notebooks. It is quite plausible that he projected light from a corpse he had hung on a cross through a camera obscura onto a cloth soaked in such a chemical.

This would explain why the head on the cloth is not to scale. He projected the image of the head separately and got the scale slightly wrong.

Evidence for the photography theory was provided several years ago by an Italian physicist who found another faint image of a head on the back of the cloth. This could have a trial run by the creator of the shroud.

And don't object that the Shroud of Turin pre-dates Leonardo. There is now plenty of scholarly evidence that the original version was such an obvious fake that the House of Savoy withdrew it from public display for a hundred or more years and that a more realistic version was then created to take its place.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 904504
United States
03/23/2010 07:59 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Shroud of Turin: An Update
It is Mediaeval because that is when ther person died.

There are not records of history beyond the year 900AD.
It was all faked by Scaliger and Petraeus.
The printing press was invented at this time and History became a big popular item. And there were plenty of folks willing to write it. There were also artisans who produced "ancient" statues and other items.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 918528


Thanks for your information. I think you mean prior to 900 AD. This proves nothing, but thanks for the post.
Peace
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 904504
United States
03/23/2010 08:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Shroud of Turin: An Update
It isn't Jesus.
It's Appolonius of Tyanna.

See for yourself.
[link to www.apollonius.net]

Apollonius was a real person.
Jesus wasn't.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 918528


Thanks also for your post. You may have faith in this info, but it also proves nothing regarding whether it is or is not the actual burial shroud of Jesus and the image on it. Thanks & peace.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 904504
United States
03/23/2010 08:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Shroud of Turin: An Update
"Scientific data conclusively proves that it is not a photograph."


It does no such thing!

Scientists are simply wrong in thinking that photo-sensitive chemicals were unknown to alchemists in the Middle Ages. They are constantly underestimating the knowledge and skills of people prior to the "official date" of a scientific discovery as recorded in history books. Leonardo da Vinci knew about the camera obscura, writing about it in one of his notebooks. It is quite plausible that he projected light from a corpse he had hung on a cross through a camera obscura onto a cloth soaked in such a chemical.

This would explain why the head on the cloth is not to scale. He projected the image of the head separately and got the scale slightly wrong.

Evidence for the photography theory was provided several years ago by an Italian physicist who found another faint image of a head on the back of the cloth. This could have a trial run by the creator of the shroud.

And don't object that the Shroud of Turin pre-dates Leonardo. There is now plenty of scholarly evidence that the original version was such an obvious fake that the House of Savoy withdrew it from public display for a hundred or more years and that a more realistic version was then created to take its place.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 911708


I appreciate the post. Feel free to add a link to the section I put in bold, especially the section in red. Thanks also...
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 904504
United States
03/23/2010 08:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Shroud of Turin: An Update
"Scientific data conclusively proves that it is not a photograph."


It does no such thing!

Scientists are simply wrong in thinking that photo-sensitive chemicals were unknown to alchemists in the Middle Ages. They are constantly underestimating the knowledge and skills of people prior to the "official date" of a scientific discovery as recorded in history books. Leonardo da Vinci knew about the camera obscura, writing about it in one of his notebooks. It is quite plausible that he projected light from a corpse he had hung on a cross through a camera obscura onto a cloth soaked in such a chemical.

This would explain why the head on the cloth is not to scale. He projected the image of the head separately and got the scale slightly wrong.

Evidence for the photography theory was provided several years ago by an Italian physicist who found another faint image of a head on the back of the cloth. This could have a trial run by the creator of the shroud.

And don't object that the Shroud of Turin pre-dates Leonardo. There is now plenty of scholarly evidence that the original version was such an obvious fake that the House of Savoy withdrew it from public display for a hundred or more years and that a more realistic version was then created to take its place.


I appreciate the post. Feel free to add a link to the section I put in bold, especially the section in red. Thanks also...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 904504


Correction... in blue ;-)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 917779
Canada
03/23/2010 08:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Shroud of Turin: An Update
The Urantia book, in the section on Jesus, explains why there was the reverse negative effect on the shroud. I found the whole section to be extremely interesting, since no other books talked about the life of Jesus from the age of 12 until he was baptized by John.


Thank you rav. I have not read what you are referring to, but I will. Thank you for at least making an effort to share knowledge with me.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 904504

You really don't want to read the Urantia Book. Not that it isn't well written...
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 904504
United States
03/23/2010 08:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Shroud of Turin: An Update
Again, I am not stating that the image on the shroud is of supernatural origin, I merely find it interesting & that all of the arguments and "proof" require the same amount of faith that believing in it seems to ;-)

Keep it coming though...
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 904504
United States
03/23/2010 08:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Shroud of Turin: An Update
The Urantia book, in the section on Jesus, explains why there was the reverse negative effect on the shroud. I found the whole section to be extremely interesting, since no other books talked about the life of Jesus from the age of 12 until he was baptized by John.


Thank you rav. I have not read what you are referring to, but I will. Thank you for at least making an effort to share knowledge with me.

You really don't want to read the Urantia Book. Not that it isn't well written...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 917779


Thanks, I read everything to know what I believe and at the very least what others do, but this does not mean I will believe it ;-)

More detail about why one would not want to read it would be appreciated though... I am interested in what you thing also. Peace
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 176444
United States
03/25/2010 08:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Shroud of Turin: An Update
Is this the face of Jesus Christ?

Figure of crucified man on Shroud comes to life


Posted: March 24, 2010
8:30 pm Eastern
[link to www.wnd.com]

News