Posted on 06/08/2011 6:02:16 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
What in the world are you talking about? Sex slaves, Divinc code,??????
The “Art Expert” is a poser.
He lacks any expertise in the necessary fields of science to make such a call.
>> “There was an incredible show recently on the History Channel (will try to link) that had Hollywood professional artisans/special effects artists re-create the face of Jesus from the Shroud” <<
.
No great feat.
Take a digital photo, use corel or adobe to flip from negative to positive.
Done.
You are gullible if you accept such a simplistic dismissal.
Thanks for the clarification.
Not a bad fake, don’t you think? And it only took them 700 years to find out!
As a Christian (and in the sciences), it doesn't matter to me if it's real or not. But I do like learning more about it, and am obviously biased to the many stories of “...as a scientist I was amazed...”
There are too many things about the Shroud that cannot be explained. It’s a miraculous impression.
If it’s important to you to have your relics, well then, have them but you’re in no position to call anyone “gullible” for not buying into something got up to impress the locals.
That 2009 attempt was laughable. It met so few of the criteria to "duplicate the Shroud" that it could not even be submitted to peer review because there was NOTHING to peer review! His "duplicate" was only superficially similar to the Shroud but it DID have pigments, the image was NOT made up in the same way that the Shroud's image is made of a nanometers thin coating of caramel like coating of Starch fraction only on the surface of the fibers left over from the fullering processing. This scientist's image soaked into the fibers, penetrated and stained the fibers, and left residues, that left telltale elemental signatures that stood out like red flags under even mild magnification, where the true Shroud shows none down to the electron microscopy level. Sorry... It was a twaddle report that went nowhere in the scientific community. It had legs only in the popular press who had no clue about peer review!
Thanks for the ping!
I disagree that it's been "proven authentic". It has not been falsified is the best we can say right now. No one can prove it's a fraud, forgery, fake, or a work of art. We don't know.
The evidence leans heavily toward it being of first century provenance and that at sometime in it's existence it was in an area in a 50 mile radius around Jerusalem, had plants that were native to that area placed on it, and had the portion of it that was the backside of the dorsal image (and on the front of the cloth under the feet of the image) laid on a surface that had stone dust from Travertine Aragonite that is unique to quarries to the east of Jerusalem and consistent with that found in the traditional sites associated with Christ's tomb.
I'd go a bit further than that, inasmuch as there are a number of features present in this artefact which are consistent with the genuine article.
1) Wet-bench and spectrographic analysis does not show either quantity of or distribution of any known paint pigments in sufficient quantity to have created the image.
2) Details of the body inconsistent with the best available knowledge / belief at the time of a forger, but consistent with what we know now (placement of holes in wrists; inward curving of thumbs).
3) Demonstrated presence of breakdown products of blood -- blood type is thought to match Sudarium, as well as the shape of some of the stains; and the Sudarium has a separate documnented history and provenance. (How would that be faked?)
4) Presence of pollen and other plant materials, some of which are from plants in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and which blossom / release pollen only at the same time of year as Good Friday / Easter / Passover.
5) 3-D imaging inherent in the shroud's image, which was unknown at the time of the supposed forging.
6) The image is a photographic negative, which was unknown at the time of the supposed forging.
7) The image is the result of a Maillard reaction with the layers of the threads of the shroud, consistent with outgassing from a corpse; and inconsistent with painting. The image has survived a number of things done to the Shroud during its long history, including boiling in oil.
8) The "debunking" C-14 testing took a number of samples in an area where the Shroud had been "patched" (invisible French re-weaving) with newer cloth; the samples traversed a section of the Shroud where the relative proportion of old-to-new fiber changed from one sample to the next. This proportion was picked up by variations in the C-14 estimate of the age of each sample. Further tests on other parts of the Shroud are consistent with it being from the time of Christ, within experimental error.
9) The type of fabric and the method of weaving used are both consistent with the Shroud's authenticity as an artifact from ancient Israel.
These factors are all physically independent and they are all present simultaneously in the original object: they are not mere "suppositions."
Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation is the true one: whatever the mechanism for the formation of the image (including "as yet unknown"), the Shroud dates from the time of Christ and was really in close proximity to the bleeding body of a crucified person.
Cheers!
If one is trying to prove an existing historical object is a fraud by creating one with known technology from the period, your creation had better exactly match the existing object in all details to make your case, not ignore unique characteristics of the original and NOT just hit superficial similarities! This "reproduction" failed on all points. . . And even the superficial similarities were poor. Regardless of "what it purports to be" the "reproduction" did not prove anything about the original because it DID NOT MATCH IN ANY PARTICULAR THE ORIGINAL, because the "scientist chose to ignore anything that did not fit his copy!! He ignored ALL the prior peer reviewed science that showed what the image is composed of in favor of a residue based pigment model... he ignored the Micro-xrayspectrometry and Micromassspectrometry studies that measured even the residue left even from the vinyl sample collection baggies the threads were placed in that found NO PIGMENT on the shroud and more, no significant elemental variation between image and non-image areas of the Shroud, except in the blood stains,
It's like claiming a photographic copy of the Mona Lisa, that really looks like Da Vinci's original, PROVES the original is a fake because the copy looks like the original! Let's ignore the fact the photo isn't an oil painting, isn't painted on a wooden panel, and has no texture... But from thirty feet away they both look the same, so the original MUST have been a fraud made by photography! See the problem?
I agree with everything you posted. . . In fact, I think I posted all of those facts. ;^)> However none of that changes what I said... They don't PROVE authenticity. As I said, the Shroud has not been falsified and the preponderance of the evidence leans heavily to it being the real thing. I just don't think that science can take that final step to certainty. I BELIEVE it is Jesus' Shroud. I can't PROVE it. I am a user of Occam's razor, too, but this one can't be shaved; too many people think the simple solution is fraud!
Me? I think that's the complicated, convoluted, most miraculous solution. It requires the belief that an unsung polymath genius existed in medieval Europe who developed a scholarship of ancient Roman crucifixion practices, Jewish burial techniques and culture, knew about palynography, 3D terrain mapping, the need to seed his creation with Travertine Aragonite to fool 21st century scientists, develop an entirely new artistic technique using melanoids at the nanometer application level, a method of applying them after placing real human blood stains that come from distressed body exudated blood with separated sera... I find THAT to be so much more miraculous than that a known miracle worker might have left behind an artifact with strange attributes!
Sorry, Race, my FRiend.....wrong on this one; big time. Nothing about “idolatry” and certainly not a “phony”. If you’d like to discuss it offline, let me know.
Well, there is 700 years between the two with all the attendant wear and tear. The so-called original has a reliable history from the 13th. cen. and so far no one ha shown otherwise.
I've done a couple of similar lists myself, too, you know.
I just saved you the trouble, given the late hour. :-)
Cheers!
no need to speak in private, the adoration of relics is idolatry, people even have adorations of the HOLY FORESKIN, and that is NOT a joke
and you can guess whose it is supposed to be
From birth to death, these relics are an abomination and idolatry.
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.