Shroud - unfiltered:
?
Shroud - filtered to remove cloth artifacts:
The cloth minus the image showing the "banding" artifacting:
If you want on or off the Shroud Ping list, Freepmail me.
Posted on 03/11/2005 8:12:13 AM PST by Swordmaker
Shroud - unfiltered:
?
Shroud - filtered to remove cloth artifacts:
The cloth minus the image showing the "banding" artifacting:
If you want on or off the Shroud Ping list, Freepmail me.
I wonder why the medieval forger wanted to obscure the second facial image using the fabric's weave until the image could be discovered centuries later using digital image-filtering software?
LOL, very funny.
LOL!
LOL!
Thanks for the ping!
Earlier this year, chemist Raymond Rogers, a Los Alamos National Laboratory chemist, showed that the sample used for carbon-14 dating was indeed from discrete reweaving of the cloth. By examining remaining material from the carbon-14 sample, he proved that what was tested was chemically unlike the rest of the shroud. Rogers found splices and dyestuff used to make the reweaving discrete.Wow! It's not hard to see the hand of God in this.
The difference between the first two images is amazing.
Ping.
Yes, if I did not know better.....I would say that he used the first image as a guide to create the second that would later be discovered by a computer program. Sooner or later.........:-)
Moving right on..........
Christ Pantocrator
Cefalu, Sicily
"Now with modern image analysis we can clearly see that the pictures of Jesus in numerous works of art are most probably sourced from a single image; the Shroud of Turin."
ShroudStory
Catholic Ping - Come home for Easter and experience God’s merciful love. Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Sorry, Wilson's technique does not duplicate the Shroud and it is certainly not identical. It is a good attempt but it is only superficially similar to the Shroud's image.
Wilson's technique is based on an artist painting a perfect, semi-transparently gradiated picture on glass which then shadows the linen below while the sun bleaches the unshadowed linen. He assumes the image on the shroud is a light photograph... it is not. It is a countour or terrain map of the shroud's distance from the body... and attempts to duplicate a photographic effect.
If it were mere bleaching, the image on the shroud would have long ago been bleached to obscurity by the sun bleaching the image portion of the shroud to match the non-image portion over years' of exposure.
In addition, one of the first things learned about the image was that it existed only on the top most fibers and that it is not contiguous as would be any bleaching. Sun bleaching reaches inside the weave and extends to areas the image does not on the real shroud. We know what the image is composed of... and it is not bleached linen. It is a chemical Maillard reaction with starch fractions coating the surface of the fiber. Microscopic examination of the fibers of Wilson's image will show that they do not compare to Shroud fibers.
Wilson's technique also does not address the existance of the faint, but unmistakable, second face image on the BACK of the shroud, which registered exactly with the frontal image, and which could not have been accomplished by sun bleaching the front.
The Shroud is not made by sun bleaching, nor does Wilson's technique cover all of the details found in the Shroud. It is just another failed attempt to duplicate it.
Thanks for posting this.
Thanks for the update. The layers of doubt keep getting pealed away.
No, it is you that is confused... IF the shroud image is unbleached linen because it was protected from exposure to the sun, then the image would be contiguous throughout as unbleached linen... it is NOT. Your point and Wilson's contention is that it is the non-image portion of the shroud that was changed to LEAVE the image behind in UN-CHANGED linen... which would therefore be contiguous. The image on the Shroud is where the change occurred... not on the un-imaged areas.
The other point to be made is that this article is talking about the linen threads, before being woven into a cloth, being sun bleached as hanks, rather than the cloth being sun bleached as a whole after weaving. The patterning is an artifact of using hanks that were differently bleached in different areas of weaving...
In addition, Math, we know from the Shroud's history that it was often exposed to the sun, sometimes for days on end, as pilgrims came to see it. If the image were as you and Wilson contend mere bleaching, such exposure would have obliterated the image.
Under the extremely thin (100th the thickness of a human hair) image layer in the image areas, the linen of the shroud is essentially identical image area to non-image areas with no color differentiation other than what is inherently there. In other words, if you take an image thread and a non-image thread and remove the image layer, the threads are identical... which completely negates the "bleaching" theory. As you pointed out, if the linen is left in the sun long enough, it bleaches "all the way through to the back" and that would include inside the threads and fibers.
A textile analysis of Wilson's shrouds has not been made yet. Your assertion that it's different is certainly speculation. Obviously, it will be necessary to examine the fibers, taking into account the effects of time experienced by the original shroud.
No, it has not. But it is unnecessary. Wilson claims it is bleaching... but a Maillard Reaction is not caused by bleaching... it requires other chemicals. Since the shroud image is not made of non-bleached linen, there is no need to examine Wilson's bleached linin copies.
I appreciate your study of the Shroud and your posts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.