The Holy Shroud: One Big Bang and the body was gone

The results of a recent study - completed by Italian scientist, Giuseppe Baldacchini - on the theory of annihilation, are said to prove the authenticity of the Shroud according to the current laws of physics

Giuseppe Baldacchini is a physician who has worked for Italian research centre ENEA for a number of years. He is also a passionate scholar of that mysterious object which is the Holy Shroud of Turin and in recent days he has published a book about his findings, which readers can access by clicking on the following link. Of particular interest is a fascinating theory he has come up with to try to respond to a series of questions about how the image on the Shroud was formed and how the body which lay wrapped inside the winding sheet could have disappeared. Baldacchini presents two theories: one, that the Shroud is a medieval fake which is useful in worship rituals and/or religious propaganda in the Catholic Church, like many other relics. And two, that it is the genuine article and really did contain Jesus Christ’s body, making it a witness of his Resurrection.

“The Shroud is an old linen sheet, measuring 4,40x1, 10 sq m, which contains a number of marks including a front and back image of a body (IC) and organic and inorganic liquid stains. Over the past decades it was discovered that the IC is neither a drawing nor a picture created with known techniques. Indeed, some reddish stains were caused by human blood (Antonacci, 2000), (Wilson, 2010). Naturally we cannot yet exclude a fake so let us suppose that the Shroud is a medieval fake created by a brilliant forger who never existed on Earth and remains unknown today (Baldacchini, 2011). The supposed author/authors must have been familiar with some kind of technology or possessed certain information before these were even invented or published.” Baldacchini lists eleven crucial scientific elements which lead him to the conclusion that the Shroud is not a fake. These are too many to list here so we ask you to refer to the original text.

The scholar recalls that “The Shroud contains no traces of putrescent liquids or gases (these marks start to appear about 40 hours after the person’s death, so the body had disappeared from the shroud before then, but not too long before that judging by the blood stains which would have needed some time to form as a result of the liquefaction of the clotted blood, the process of haemolysis),” and that “The body was not removed from the Shroud manually (there are no signs of dragging that correspond with the blood stains).”

So how did the body disappear? Baldacchini’s response is this: “The only phenomenon in Physics that can lead to the complete disappearance of mass, producing an equivalent energy is the process known as matter-antimatter annihilation (AMA). Today, this can only be reproduced on a subatomic level in elementary particle laboratories but was a dominant occurrence straight after the Big Bang. That is, in the first instants of our universe’s existence.” The “annihilation theory” also satisfies the criteria of previous theories: “Indeed, only a small portion of the energy from the dead matter is released, while the body is completely annihilated and reappears almost exactly as it was before even outside the Shroud.” Previous theories are based on radiant energy (MEB) and the idea of the body being mechanically transparent (REB). These were completed by the “Consistent historical method” (CHM) theory. Said theories were all conceived in order to explain the body’s disappearance as it was not mechanically removed from the winding sheet. Therefore, Jesus Christ’s body becomes transparent for the Shroud, which satisfies the MTB theory, whilst releasing a limited amount of radiant energy, a requirement of the REB theory, without the problems presented by the HCM theory.”

Concluding his study, the physician states that: “The AMA theory tells us nothing, except that the body dematerialised inside the Shroud and instantly materialised again somewhere else, either dead or alive. This makes no difference to the laws of Physics as this way they do not contradict the evangelical texts which describe it as resurrected and therefore alive.” They also tally with the chemical and physical characteristics of the Holy Shroud. “I pushed the boundaries of current scientific knowledge but tried to remain within the laws of physics we are familiar with today, mainly the preservation of energy and the non preservation of some parameters that are essential in the elementary processes which form the basis of our universe’s existence,” the scholar concluded.

Perhaps you should read this:

http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/JaworskiWeb.pdf

What I find absolutely fascinating is that you hold yourself out to be an expert who has done a lot of research. Yet, you make declarative statements without providing the proof to back you up. Such as post 36.

Who wrote about Raphael’s supposed transparent painting??? You claim it is not one...but several people.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1646533
/posts?page=36#36

What’s your resource?

Everything I find shows that Raphael was very interested in Durer’s work. ...but it is the ENGRAVING that is always written about ..not the transparent painting . He might have found it interesting...but he fascinated by the engraving.

You claim you found a book that shows letter between Raphael and Durer but you didn’t send that information to the person who you cite as an authority -Roberto Falcinelli.

He would be most interested in that info. So would the rest of the researchers. You claim that Raphael went into detail about working on the cloth. YET, NO ONE IN THE MODERN AGE KNOWS ABOUT THIS and you didn’t see fit to make this book known????

I find the whole thing suspect. When looking at your previous posts there are lots of declarative statements about Raphael and Durer but nothing to back them up.

People just seem to take you at your word and don’t ask for evidence.

I ask for evidence. You can’t provide it.

It is entirely within the realm of possiblity that the Church ordered up this artifact for whatever reason.

It is possible that the Veil is manmade.

But ...you are presenting facts not in evidence and therefore I discount it entirely.

btw, your find is of such importance - and since none of these researchers seem to know about Raphael trying his hand at a transparent painting..and there are several people who have seen the works according to you..AND... it is not talked about by any art historian that I can find

It would seem this find of yours should be made known to the world who is spending so much time looking at the Veil.

It won’t take you long to find that book. There can’t be very many from 1936 at your University Library. You can search online to find it.

It is beyond me why you won’t share this INCREDIBLE piece of art history to those researching the Veil...unless..of course..it doesn’t exist.

Look, RummyChick, you have been making accusations of my making up data in all of your comments impugning my honesty because you can't find a link. I resent that. I assure you that if you check my threads you will NEVER find that I have ever exaggerated a fact I have posted or made up data. I assure you I found and read the translated letters, as have others. This discussion is simply not important enough to me to spend another two weeks of my time to duplicate the research I did six years ago to again find that data. It was posted on FreeRepublic when the Manoppello Veronica was publicized more broadly then and fascinated me. I provided the links and attributions there.

I had discussions with other Shroud scholars about it, including Barry Schwortz, and followed some of their leads. It was not just MY find but others who discussed the Raphael linkage and it was not MY theory or determination that it was a self-portrait of Raphael that I posted. I cannot help it if you can't find those articles now. Once other scientists got a good look at the Manoppello veil and found loads of pigments, it because pretty obvious, that it is a work of artifice, a painting. The 3D scans confirm that. It was of no further interest to me. It is a work of art and I am not an art historian. I am not going to spend any more time on it. The Shroud is my focus on these threads.

By the way, the article by Jaworski and Fanti does not indicate anywhere that they think it is made of Linen. They appear to still think it is Byssus.

[...we have Jesus himself, body, blood, soul, and divinity, in every Catholic church in the world.]

No you don't and most Catholic agree with that sentiment...

I can see why you're easily fooled. Richard Dawkins once said (and though he's an avid atheist and I disagree with just about everything he says - but even he gets it)

that Catholics who don’t believe in transubstantiation should be honest and admit that they are no longer Roman Catholics.

Those who are truly Catholic and embrace Catholic teachings absolutely believe in the transubstantiation.

I have watched the very interesting way you twist facts.

Such as this post

“Albrecht Durer (1471-1528) was very fond of self portraits and often sent his own to others. Sometime in the early 16th Century, he sent a self portrait to his friend Raphael (1483- 1520) that was painted on a transparent cloth, visible from both sides and was described by Raphael and those who saw it as “miraculous”.

“According to Vasari, Dürer’s self-portrait was painted in watercolour on a canvas so extremely fine that it could be seen from both the front and the back side. It was truly a piece of virtuosity, which beside immortalizing the artist’s features was clearly intended to show his painting skills.”
Wolfram Prinz

Raphael, using the same technique and same Byssus cloth, painted his OWN portrait and sent it to Dürer.

“By these and other works the fame of Raphael spread to France and Flanders. Albert Dürer, a remarkable German painter and author of some fine copper engravings, paid him the tribute of his homage and sent him his own portrait, painted in water-colours, on byssus, so fine that it was transparent, without the use of white paint, the white material forming the lights of the picture This appeared marvellous to Raphael, who sent back many drawings of his own which were greatly valued by Albert...”
Giorgio Vasari

Various persons who saw both Dürer’s and Raphael’s “miraculous” self-portraits described them as being made from either Byssus or Cambric.”

You are trying to use a quote from Vasari to bolster your declaration that Raphael sent a transparent painting to Durer. But that is NOT what he is referencing. He is talking about the DRAWINGS that Raphael sent.

You then talk about various person who saw Raphael’s self portrait BUT YOU CAN POINT TO NO EVIDENCE.

And yes, I don’t believe you. For some reason, you have an agenda to show that the Veil is not real.

I, on the other hand, am actually looking for evidence. I would gladly entertain information that Raphael did a transparent Self-portrait..BUT I SEE NO EVIDENCE OF IT AND YOU AREN”T PROVIDING ANY.

All you provide is a declaration.

So, your posts are not relevant to me because you refuse to back up your claim.

Btw, if I had throughly researched a topic in the libary..I would know in general how to look it up years later. It wouldn’t be that hard to go online and see what your University had...especially since you know the time frame...but there is a reason you don’t want to do it.

The fact that Raphael did a transparent painting would be of great importance to the researcher that you quoted to bolster your statements. Yet, you didn’t bother to tell him....

Jaworski DOES use the word linen- referencing Fanti
http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/JaworskiWeb.pdf

Jaworski DOES use the word linen- referencing Fanti

http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/JaworskiWeb.pdf

Thank you for that link. I appreciate the reading of that article. It was new information. I stand corrected. Incidentally, the spectral data vis-a-vis Linen and Byssal threads would apply to cotton as well. Until qualified scientists can open that reliquary and examine the threads themselves, we cannot know for sure what they are.

I am willing to agree that they are not Byssus. I have always thought they were not for logical reasons. . . mostly because of the costly nature of the cloth both in Jerusalem and in Europe. In the 1st Century Byssus was pretty much reserved for Royalty and it would be highly unlikely that any lady of royal blood would even BE there much less offer her veil to a condemned prisoner to wipe his sweaty and bloodied face on in the Streets of the town. A veil made of linen would make more sense, such as the one being held in the Vatican. Similarly, when Dürer and Raphael were exchanging their artwork, of whatever kind, Cambric would be of almost equal diaphanous nature as Byssus and a FAR cheaper cloth with which to experiment.

You claim I have an agenda to show that the Veil is not real... Yes, RummyChick, I do. Why? Because that is what the scholarship, science, and evidence shows me is the case!

You, on the other hand, claim to have no agenda, but your every argument shows you have an agenda of ignoring the evidence to accept the Manoppello Veronica as the one and only veil that was pressed to Jesus' face on the Via Dolorosa on the way to the Cross, despite all the evidence that it could not be. . . even resorting to using "miracle" as a convenient way of explaining everything that does not fit your pre-conceived notions.

I do not have to resort to "miracles" to explain away the FACT that the sizing does not match... or that the mustache and beard are totally different and also DO NOT MATCH... to those seen on the Shroud of Turin. Or see swelling in a cheek as Fanti claims. . . because the cloth was stretched when it was mounted in the glass, distorting the face... or impute wispy locks of forehead hair on the Shroud face that are not there and that NO ONE ELSE HAS SEEN, because there are wispy locks of forehead hair of the Manoppello image, as again, Fanti does!

The SCIENCE and SCHOLARSHIP show me that the Manoppello veil is a beautiful work of art, most likely, but not assuredly, done by Raphael (it may have been an attempt by Dürer to portray his friend using his technique)... but it LOOKS like other self-portraits of that artist at the time of life in which it was reliably reported that he exchanged experimental portraits with Dürer.. reports of which I, and others, found compelling enough to agree with. That minor finding stands, along with all the other evidence, but it is not the main point, but only one of many data points in the making of the conclusion that the Manoppello Veil is not authentic.

I will continue to put forward those findings when it invades Shroud threads. Perhaps I am wrong. However, the veil DOES have pigments on it... everywhere there is image.

"Perhaps I am wrong.However, the veil DOES have pigments on it... everywhere there is image."

Here we go again. Playing fast and loose with the truth. You are indictating that the pigments have to do with a man made painting.

CITE the study that shows there are man made pigments everywhere there is an image. Perhaps you should read this

http://www.sede.enea.it/eventi/eventi2010/ArcheiropoietosImage040510/Jaworski.pdf

http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/JaworskiWeb.pdf Note carefully what is being said about the Shroud as it compares to the Veil.

As for reliable reporting of exchange of self-portraits..you can't provide ANY reliable source.

As I have said before, I want to see evidence. Show me evidence of man made pigments used in every part of the image of the Veil as would have been used by Durer.

Durer sent watercolors on a fine fabric of some sort. Watercolors for the tints and dark areas and the white cloth was for the highlights.

http://books.google.com/books?id=UrGSQ5fPPp0C&pg=PA146&dq=durer+transparent+raphael+watercolor+vasari&hl=en&sa=X&ei=w6j3T6mSLIijrQHA9cSLCQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Now, show me analysis that shows the image on the veil is done in this same way.

"Da Vinci may have known about this technique" The Grove Encyclopedia of Materials and Techniques in Art

http://members.efn.org/~acd/vite/VasariRomano2.html

"Among the many rare things that he had in his house was the portrait from life of Albrecht D�rer on a piece of fine Rheims cloth, by the hand of Albrecht himself, who sent it, as has been related in another place, as a present to Raffaello da Urbino. This portrait was an exquisite thing, for it had been colored in gouache with much diligence with watercolors, and Albrecht had executed it without using lead white, availing himself in its stead of the white of the cloth, with the delicate threads of which he had so well rendered the hairs of the beard, that it was a thing scarcely possible to imagine, much less to do; and when held up to the light it showed through on either side. This portrait, which was very dear to Giulio, he showed to me himself as a miracle, when I went during his lifetime to Mantua on some affairs of my own. "

Put that portrait under glass . You think that these scientists wouldn't be able to tell that there were watercolors throughout the portrait????????????????

Btw, gouache is OPAQUE watercolor
here is Gouache and watercolor by DURER
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zSpU-GHN74A/T9Kzu2TF8hI/AAAAAAAABrE/Lb0I4P-WlWc/s1600/durer50.jpg

here is another
https://www.art-prints-on-demand.com/kunst/albrecht_duerer/a_monkey.jpg

The self Portrait sent to Raphael would have looked nothing like the Veil Giulia Bartrum is a curator of German prints and drawings at the British Museum. Wrote an essay. Page 27. He calls it the self portrait to Raphael "gouache" Second hand reference since i haven't actually read Bartrum's work. But hey, I sure can provide a lot more info on the Self Portrait than you can.

Since I can provide ACTUAL references, whereas you only provide declarative statements with no evidence..let me show you some more evidence:

"Guazzo"
means
gouache
Here are the Italian words that Vasari used in describing Durer's painting

http://books.google.com/books?id=fJ-dQpbfrysC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=vasari+romano+durer&source=bl&ots=tQGYEnCS_4&sig=fAH6kBZjWYd5TCgWcKQ1u2yKygY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Tx34T97rBeWw2wXL1aDIBg&ved=0CFEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=vasari%20romano%20durer&f=false

I can go one step further...here is an early 1900s book by Gaston C. DeVere,

http://archive.org/stream/livesofmostemine06vasauoft#page/164/mode/2up/search/duke

Note the word "GOUACHE" in describing the portrait

So you have it in Vasari's own words and in the translation.

The internet is a beautiful thing. People can now pierce through declarative statements to show them as fraud.

I suspect what has happened is that you spun your own interpretation on something that has no basis in reality.This is why I wanted to see the ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

You cited Roberto Falcinelli to bolster your theory. His working theory is that the picture is of Durer. It can't be. It doesn't match the description by Vasari.

Or course, Vasari could have got it wrong. But nothing in evidence so far says that he did. Perhaps part of the problem is that Roberto isn't a painter. Perhaps he doesn't know the meaning of gouache.

Here is another Gouache and watercolor painting by Durer. Looks NOTHING like the Veil

http://www.friendsofart.net/en/art/albrecht-d%C3%BCrer/view-of-arco
another
http://www.superstock.com/stock-photos-images/1788-13774

one more
http://www.abcgallery.com/D/durer/durer42.html

It is clear that Durer used gouache for the color of his self portrait. He used the fine cloth for the highlights (whites)
It would not look like the Veil.

So I guess you guys don’t believe that Jesus existed as a real, live, incarnate human being?

What in the world does that have to do with not believing in the authenticity of the shroud???

And I guess we’re not permitted to be interested in any possible remains he may have left behind? Funny there are thousands of museums with relics of historical personages — I guess that means the secular world is idolotrous as well to be interested in history?

Naw...There's a certain religion which claims it has body parts of most every one of their Saints...Pieces of the Cross...Clothes that Jesus wore, and on and on and on...

I assume that is to sell the idea that it is the one true religion...

I don't believe that Jesus would have left any physical evidence of his existence...

And, looking at the 'shroud', I have yet to have someone explain why the top of Jesus' head is left out of the image on the cloth that supposedly wrapped his body from toe to heel...

The front of his head butts up against the back of his head in the image...

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.