Thank you for the superbly, detailed explanation. Just fascinating!
Posted on 04/13/2004 2:52:34 PM PDT by shroudie
The most definitive evidence yet that the Shroud of Turin is not a medieval fake-relic. This is big stuff, published on a highly respected scientific organizations website, the Institute of Physics, a 37,000 member organization of physicists. Their journal is an ethical journal of peer-reviewed scientific studies.
The Washington Times, BBC, the Observer, the Telegraph of London, ABC Australia, the Chicago Sun-Times and several outlets have picked up the story in the last few hours. In my opinion it reinforces the already clear proof that the carbon 14 testing in 1988 was completely erroneous. It clearly eliminates the polemics of medieval paintings, da Vinci conspiracies, proto-photography and other silly concocted theories being bantered about by those skeptical of Christianity.
If it is a genuine burial shroud of a 1st century victim of crucifixion, it can almost certainly be inferred that it is Jesus. If that is so, it buries the extra-liberal revisionism of John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg who argue that Jesus was not buried.
If it is a genuine burial shroud of a 1st century victim of crucifixion, how is it that this piece of cloth survived the grave and was not ravaged by decomposition products?
The story at the link is quite technical. I suggest alternatively reading the stories in any of the various newspapers or for a clear concise explanation read first Chemistry of the Image and then Explanation of the Backside Image.
From the extract: "Photographs of the back surface of the Turin Shroud were analysed to verify the existence of a double body image of a man. The body image is very faint and the background not uniform; i.e., the signal-to-noise ratio is lower than one. Therefore, image processing . . . was necessary to highlight body features. This was based on convolution with Gaussian filters, summation of images, and filtering in spatial frequency by direct and inverse bidimensional Fourier transformations.
Not THAT strong. And if the blood has dried, what caused the stain?
Yes, that strong. How strong do you think it would have to be? Remember, this has been experimentally confirmed.
However, it should also be remembered that the Shroud is not that heavy when weighed per square centimeter. The total weight of the cloth that would have pressed the stiffened hair down is not great.
There is blood that has dried and blood that has clotted and blood that was still seeping from deep wounds as the body was moved into different positions. Experts on blood flow have examined the blood stains on the Shroud and found them quite as expected from the wounds seen.
And the average height of a someone from a *relevant* ethnic group was... what? Remember, if you don't like using a hypothetical "patch" as a data point, then why use a clearly irrelevant ethnic group to guage normal height? Why not a Masai or a Viking?
If a Roman, given decent food and medical care, was 5'8", then a poor Judean sheperd-descendant should have been a little dinky guy. Height like 5'10" should have been tall enough to merit mention.
What exactly is not relevant about skeletons disinterred from a JEWISH 1ST CENTURY CEMETARY IN JERUSALEM? I didn't use a Viking or a Masai warrior because they are totally irrelevant. Skeletons from the vicinity of Jerusalem, in a Jewish cemetary, showing signs of a traditional Jewish burial would seem to me to be the very population we should be using for comparison. Anthropological studies of these skeletons of mature semitic men found an average height of 5 foot 9 inches. Incidentally, the research on the skeletons had nothing to do with studies of the Shroud.
The data on the average heights come from the world's leading expert on the topic, unrelated to Shroud studies. Dr. Stanley Ulijaszek, PhD., Fellow of St. Cross College, and Faculty of the Institute of Biological Anthropology, Archaeology and Anthropology at the Universith of Oxford, perhaps the world's foremost expert on Human Ecology, and editor of The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Growth & Development, Cambridge Press, reports in the Encyclopedia:
The average height of males calculated from bones found in 1st through 4th Century Jerusalem graves is 5' 9". and further documents . . . the average Roman soldier (c. 300BC - 120 AD) was 5' 7 3/4" and the average Italian (c. 1980) 5' 8 3/4".AS I pointed out, the average American male today is 5 foot 9.25 inches. The normal range of heights for those American males is between 5'5" and 6'2". Assuming that semitic men have a similar height distribution, 5 foot 10" would not have been an extraordinary heighth. 1st Century Judea was a net exporter of food, wine and grain. It was, if you recall, the "Land of Milk and Honey" and its people ate well. What do you think "shepherds" ate? Perhaps they ate mutton? Bread? Grapes? Drank wine?The populace was well fed and industrious. They were not "little, dinky guys."
Only when he was dead.
Part of the Jewish burial customs was to bind the mouth closed by using a cloth chin strap. This would be passed under the chin and beard, around the head by the ears, and tied over the crown. Think of the old cartoons of someone with a tooth ache or a tied on icepack without the icepack. Other bindings were used to keep the legs together and the wrists in repose.
Not necessarily true. In some cultures the richer people ate a richer diet... sweeter, too much liquor, etc. and were in worse health than their peasantry. However, in Judea, the country had an overabundance of food and was a net exporter. The Roman upper crust suffered from severe lead poisoning in the later years of the Empire because they used water from lead pipes... not the "lead" plates of myth, although their pewter ware had a high lead content. The lower classes generally drew their water direct from wells and cisterns if not from creeks and rivers.
During the period, there was a thriving artisan class... masons, carpenters, weavers, leather workers, metalworkers. While there was no true "middle class" these artisans would be higher than "peasants." Jesus was traditionally a "carpenter" although some theologians of the Crossen ilk would try to translate that as "laborer," which would be in the first case a "skilled" trade. He certainly would not have been the skinny emaciated character some people try to depict because carpenters had to move large timbers and swing adzes and axes in preparing their raw materials.
No, I didn't. I had an invisible superintelligent naked mole rat read it to me from the future.
LMBO!!! <:D
The structural strength of matted *hair* does not stand up well compared to it's weight.We're not talking about modern lightweight hairsprays here... just sweat and blood. Enough of that to stiffen the hair would weigh it down so that it would not stick out.
What part of DEMONSTRATED do you fail to understand. The questions you raised have not gone unasked... and unanswered all these years. These are not amatuers performing these experiments. When the dried blood and water soaked hair was supported from the back by the customary chin strap to keep the mouth closed (you do notice that the mouth is closed?), the stiff, unwashed hair, especially the traditional Jewish forelocks, did indeed stay forward.
The shroud also presents evidence that in addition to the dried blood and sweat, the hair may have been oiled or greased, as the queue (the unbraided braid) on the back of the head, seen on the dorsal image, is the only thing that is "blurry" on the Shroud. The Bible speaks of Jesus' head being anointed with oil.
How do you get a leg thats straight in front and bent in back, all at the same time?
How do you know it was "straight"? The fact that the Shroud shows this strange quality of both, is more proof that the Shroud is a genuine gravecloth.
This is going to be a bit long, but bear with me, Orion. Like most apparently obvious things on the Shroud, it isn't obvious or easy.
Orion, the basic problem is that the human mind, yours and mine included, expects to see the Shroud as a photograph. We infer SHADOWS and our minds interpret shadow to represent changes in depth or position because that is what we see in the lighted world.
But, Orion, the Shroud is NOT a photograph. There is no light to be shadowed; no shadow to be processed by our minds into positional information; but our minds STILL want to see it as we expect to see it and process it as such.
Instead, the Shroud is a fairly accurate topographical map of the body it covered, with image intensity providing a proportional indicator of the distance of body to shroud surface. This is why the VP-8 Image Analyzer converts the data into a quasi-three dimensional representation; something that cannot be done with a photograph.
The fact is that the frontal image portion of the shroud drapes over the body to a certain degree, following the contour of the body. The shroud touches some parts of the body that are higher than others, and spans the parts that are lower. If the shroud vertically follows the leg, then the "topographic map" will show only relative distance of body-to-shroud, not body distance to some fixed plane like you would get with a flat photographic plate. This means that we really can not know how high the knees were from the information in the frontal image. Since both legs were approximately equal distance from the shroud part that covers that leg, the image intensity appears to be equal, giving the FALSE impression that the legs are equally "straight".
Consider the situation of having a laprobe on your legs as you sit in a chair. The laprobe is always touching your legs. An image is somehow formed of your legs from top thigh to ankle with essentially equal intensity related to the distance. Unfold the laprobe and you will see an image of what appears to be straight legs, even though, when the image was made, your legs were bent at the knee.
The dorsal image portion of the shroud, the lower cloth which probably was spreadout on a flat stone surface, IS much more like a flat photographic plate than the upper frontal image portion of the shroud which tends to follow the contours of the supine body. This can be seen in the flattened buttocks and shoulders on the dorsal image. Distance from surface of the stone to body on the dorsal image CAN be inferred from the Shroud.
Now we must include the other fact that must be considered. According to every forensic pathologist who has examined the image, the body was in rigor mortis. While it has been straightened as well as possible by the people who placed it on the shroud, when it was on the cross, however, one foot was placed on top of the other to be nailed. It stayed in that position for some time, and was still in that position when rigor set in.
Because of this, the lower body image exhibits some "twist" that is not apparent on the UPPER shroud image because of the topographic mapping nature of the Shroud, but is apparent in the LOWER shroud image where the body-to-shroud distance is roughly equivalent to body-to-flat-rock distance.
The leg that was on top (on the cross) would tend to STILL be forward of the leg that was behind and gravity would create this twist... but the top shroud would not and could not show it because of the drape and distance limits of the image formation.
The leg that was forward, still stiff in rigor, would not press equally as hard on the lower, flat plane portion of the Shroud as the leg that was behind, providing less contact and giving the impression on the Shroud image that the leg was somewhat "bent"... but the weight of the shroud on TOP of the leg would tend to equalize between supporting contacts on the body so that the legs were approximately "equally" distant from their respective portions of the Shroud, giving the impression of being "straight."
Well, Orion, if you're still with me, we got to the end... I hope the trip was worth it.
Nor are they amateurs who perform experiments that show alternate means of shroud manufacture.Yes, for the most part they ARE amatuers. They are not Forensic Pathologists, Anthropologists, or Physiologists. They are professional Magicians, book authors, and people with pet theories... all amatuers, all inexperienced at interpreting forensic data.
Unless, of course, by "professional" you mean "makes one's living on the shroud."Well, while a few Shroud researchers have made money by selling the books they've authored on their researches, they cannot be said to be making a living doing so... but some of the counter theorists can. Most of the researchers fund their research from their own pockets.
Hmm. What evidence of such a strap is there on the shroud?Evidence of chin strap: the Mouth is closed. The hair and beard are pushed forward somewhat.
Given the plethora of presumed details supposedly seen, the strap shoudl be pretty obvious.No, Orion, it's under the beard and hair... remember?
Thank you for the superbly, detailed explanation. Just fascinating!
Exactly the people who SHOULD be doing these experiments. If you want to know if soemthing was done fraudulently, why not go to people who know who to commit fraud? Scientists are generally pretty poor at recognizing fraud... look at the history of ESP experiments and the like.
Why do you think a professional magician would be any help? Most of the PURCHASE their bag of tricks from engineers who design them for them. ESP experiments were real time examples of misdirection and sleight of hand with living subjects demonstrating a supposed "talent.". Misdirection and sleight of hand has nothing to do with an existing artifact. Every attempt by one of these magicians to recreate the Shroud has resulted in a ludicrous failure.
In other words... "none."
No, there are the known cultural, historic, and specific burial practices of the 1st Century Judea and Jews. There is the fact the mouth is closed (supposedly after sever days and or hours), the curious question of the appearance of the hair and beard being thrust forward. These are all forms of evidence.
Is there a visible chin strap? No.
Does there have to be visible? No, based on observation and knowledge of history and culture, including the knowledge it was a common practice, makes it a reasonable inferance.
Are Jews the only ones to use a chin strap? No it actually was and is a fairly common burial practice. In the United States, the morticians SUTURE the mouth and eyes closed.
Is it possible that rigor mortis is keeping the mouth closed? Possible, but unlikely. The Man on the Shroud died in agony, probably with his mouth open to help him breathe or to scream. It certainly would have fallen open on death by the force of gravity alone. Rigor would have left him agape instead of closed mouthed.
And so on.
All the evidence points to some kind of binding keeping the jaw closed.
"If you want to know if soemthing was done fraudulently, why not go to people who know who to commit fraud?"
I Read It and pointed out that magicians are experts in what might be termed "performance fraud" not "artistic" fraud. No one goes to a magician to determine if a Rembrandt or a Rodin work of art is a "fraud." Magicians are not called in to examine counterfeit money, documents, or photographs.
Magicians work by misdirection and engineering... not too useful when examining a static artifact. There is no "misdirection" associated with the Shroud.
I also pointed out that the magicians who have claimed to have duplicated the Shroud, Joe Nickell among them, produced ludicrous copies that only met one if any of the list of criteria established to successfully demonstrate duplication. All of their attempts involved daubing pigments despite the lack of pigments on the image areas of the original, searing wet cloth on a heated statue which produced images that fluoresced while the original does not, chemically treating the shroud to make it photosensitive and making it a photograph despite chemical tests showing no photosensitive chemicals or their derivitives on the shroud... and not one of these hypotheses and techniques had NOT already been thought of, and tested, by scientists in the preceding 100 years or so. Had anyone of these magicians produced a copy that met some of the criteria, I would want to talk to him.
If I wanted to explore and expose the fraudulent nature of a "performance" miracle such as "Psychic surgery," "Changing Water to Wine," "Psychokinesis movement of a matchbox in a bell jar," or "remote viewing," I will summon Joe Nickell (but I will check his sources diligently) or the Amazing Randi. The Shroud, however, is a static mystery... there IS no one standing behind the curtain... there is no hidden compartment... there is no sleight of hand... there is no false thumb... and there is no need for an expert in the use of any of them in studying the Shroud.
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.