Shroud of Turin. Case NOT closed. Burial cloth of Jesus or cynical counterfeit? | |
Shroud researcher User ID: 62573 United Kingdom 01/13/2006 06:24 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "If it's a painting, it's a work of singular brilliance: a negative image created centuries before photographic negativity was discovered. A work that displays properties of three-dimensionality and perfect symmetry." It CANNOT be a painting because two Italian physicists Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolio of Padova University last year discovered [link to www.iop.org] that the discolouring of the lines fibres is confined to the surface and does not extend into the cloth, which is what would be expected if paint had soaked into the material. The fact that the image is a negative of a 3-dimensional figure indicates beyond reasonable doubt that it is a photographic image, created by a camera obscura technique that projected the image of a torso onto a linen sheet impregnated with a photo-sensitive chemical. Leonardo da Vinci knew of the camera obscura because he describes it in his notebooks, and it might have known to a few others long before him - a secret discovered only centuries later. Similarly, a few alchemists may have discovered chemicals like silver nitrate that reacted to light but - as they often did with their experiments - kept it secret and never written about, thus explaining the lack of documentary evidence for such a discovery. The fact that the head is disproportionally smaller than the torso indicates that the images of the head and body were created on different occasions, resulting in their becoming slightly mismatched in scale. The much fainter image of a face and hands on the other side of the cloth discovered by the Italian physicists is consist with being a test carried out to make sure an image could be reproduced before the complete figure was generated on the other side. They concluded that the shroud cannot have been faked by painting because the images are confined to the two surfaces of the sheet. But this is true only for a painted image. If the linen had been made to act as a photographic film by brushing a photo-senstive chemical like silver nitrate onto it, the image created would have been formed only on the surface exposed to the light, which is precisely what Fanti and Maggiolio found. The body would have had to be placed on top of a black cloth so that the remainder of the cloth did not turn dark when its image was projected onto it. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 19894 United Kingdom 01/13/2006 06:44 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 62573 United Kingdom 01/13/2006 06:52 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 62552 Germany 01/13/2006 07:03 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You want Science? Read this Book: Jesus Lived in India (his unknown life before and after the crucifixion) by Holger Kersten English version: ISBN 0-906540-90-9 A compelling look is in Chapter 5 the "Death" of Jesus" pg. 142 - Scientific Analysis of the Schroud |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 62573 United Kingdom 01/13/2006 07:17 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The Gospel of John states, "Nicodemus ... brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury" (Jn 19:39-40, KJV). No traces of spices have been found on the cloth. Frederick Zugibe, a medical examiner, reports [link to www.shroud.com] that the body of the man wrapped in the shroud appears to have been washed before the wrapping. It would be odd for this to occur after the anointing, so some proponents have suggested that the shroud was a preliminary cloth that was then replaced before the anointing, because there was not enough time for the anointing due to the Sabbath. However, there is no empirical evidence to support these theories. The scientific evidence therefore does not agree with the Gospel of John. |
Elijah nli User ID: 62450 United States 01/13/2006 07:29 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | They solved many of the issues brought up here along with the dating of the relic. This also resolves why the Catholic church does not want to explain its origins. I am unsure if it is correct, but they make a compelling argument. You may find it an interesting read. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 62573 United Kingdom 01/13/2006 07:48 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 62552: "You want Science? Read this Book: Jesus Lived in India (his unknown life before and after the crucifixion) by Holger Kersten English version: ISBN 0-906540-90-9 A compelling look is in Chapter 5 the "Death" of Jesus" pg. 142 - Scientific Analysis of the Schroud" Extragavant speculation, not science. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 62573 United Kingdom 01/13/2006 07:49 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 62552 Germany 01/13/2006 07:59 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 62552 Germany 01/13/2006 08:01 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
ORBY User ID: 59841 United Kingdom 01/13/2006 09:07 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 301 United States 01/13/2006 09:24 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Jesus was buried with a separate head cloth and body cloth, read here: John 20:4-8 gives the testimony of John and Peter after Mary Magdalene reported very early in the morning that the two thousand pound stone door to the tomb of Jesus had been rolled back leaving the tomb open. She ran and told Peter and John, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him" (20:2). Peter and John headed to the tomb. John, one of the two eyewitnesses, tells us what happened. And the two were running together; and the other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter, and came to the tomb first; and stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings lying there; but he did not go in. Simon Peter therefore also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he beheld the linen wrappings lying there, and the face–cloth, which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb entered then also, and he saw and believed. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 301 United States 01/13/2006 09:25 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | by JOE ZIAS 1 Josephus, Jewish War 7.203. 2Bella Civilia 1.120. Undoubtedly, one of the cruelest and most humiliating forms of punishment in the ancient world was, according to ancient sources, crucifixion. The Jewish historian Josephus best described it following the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 66-70 as "the most wretched of deaths."1 Whereas in Seneca's Epistle 101 to Lucilius, he argues that suicide is preferable to the cruel fate of being put on the cross. This form of state terror was widespread across the Roman Empire which included Europe, North Africa and Western Asia. It originated several centuries before the Common Era and continued into the fourth century AD when the practice was discontinued by Constantine, the emperor of Rome. While its origins are obscured in antiquity, it is clear that this form of capital punishment lasted for around 800 years and tens if not hundreds of thousands of individuals were subject to this cruel and humiliating death. Mass executions in which hundreds and thousands died – such as the well known crucifixion of 6,000 followers of Spartacus as part, of a victory celebration along the Appian Way in 71 BCE – appear in the literature.2 [link to www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu] |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 62617 United States 01/13/2006 09:59 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 62644 United Kingdom 01/13/2006 03:14 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Camera obscura: a dark room with a tiny hole in the wall or the roof, through which the view outside is projected onto the opposite wall or a screen. The first person to observe the optical principles of the camera obscura was Aristotle (384-322 BC), when he observed a crescent-shaped partial eclipse of the sun, projected on the ground through the holes of a strainer. The actual invention of the camera obscura has been erroneously accredited by different writers to Roger Bacon, Leonardo da Vinci, G.B. Della Porta and Alberti. However, in the tenth century (250 years prior to Bacon) an Arabic scholar, known as Alhazen, described the camera obscura. Girolama Cardano, one of the great intellectuals of the renaissance, was the first person to describe the camera obscura used in conjunction with a bi-convex lens. This increased the sharpness of the projected image, but reduced its brightness. Della Porta was the first who used a concave mirror to increase the size of the image and also to erect the image (images from camera obscura had previously been small and upside down). He was also the first to suggest the use of the camera obscura as an artistic tool, so that people who could not paint could use the projected image to ‘trace’ the outlines of their picture, and add the paint later. Friedrich Risner first suggested a portable camera obscura, presumably for its use as an artistic aid. He suggested the use of a lightweight wooden hut, with a small hole and lens in each wall, and a cube of paper in the centre for drawing. Sir Henry Wotton first describes a tent camera obscura, used by astronomer Johann Kepler in 1620. However, the earliest reference to a small portable box camera came in 1657, from Kasper Schott. This concept was advanced in 1676 by Johann Christoph Sturm, who described and illustrated the first portable reflex camera obscura, used as an aid to drawing and painting. By the beginning of the eighteenth century, there became a craze for camera obscuras in different shapes and forms. Described by John Harris as ‘one of the finest sights in the world’, the camera obscura was now widely used by artists and scientists alike, as well as for recreational and entertainment purposes, as mentioned in contemporary literature. Artists like da Vinci and Della Porta may not have been the first to know about the camera obscura. Thomas Wedgewood and Sir Humphrey Davies are accredited as being the first to combine the camera obscura with light-sensitive materials in 1802. But - like so many discoveries in science - what the textbooks record as the first discoveries are not always what were actually. They were sometimes merely the first RECORDED instances. It is therefore quite possible that a few alchemists stumbled across photosensitive materials during their experiments but never recorded their discoveries for posterity (after all, alchemists tended to be secretive individuals). The simple reason why none have been detected on the Turin Shroud could be that the chemical used was not among the chemicals tested for. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 283 United States 01/13/2006 03:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | For the life of me I can't see how a person with no common sense at all can look after himself. It should be obvious to a child that there is no mechanism (other than a miracle, which can do anything) that can form an undistorted image of a complex shape, such as a human body, on a cloth wrapped around that body. |