Replies

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.