Skip to comments.
Turin Shroud Back Side Shows Face
Discovery Channel News ^
| April 11, 2004
| Rossella Lorenzi
Posted on 04/12/2004 4:17:04 AM PDT by shroudie
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-89 next last
To: RightOnline
Though their is blood evidence, it still doesn't prove that it wasn't painted. My problem with the whole thing is that it is TOO perfect an image..i.e., no creases distorting the image, the image is balanced in the middle of the cloth (a little guessing here).
I'd be measuring the distances from each feature to the edges, etc. I do think it is clever though.
61
posted on
04/12/2004 1:28:28 PM PDT
by
Sacajaweau
(God Bless Our Troops!!)
To: All
All that hair, and that tacky blood and body fluids and not a strand to be found.
62
posted on
04/12/2004 1:29:56 PM PDT
by
Sacajaweau
(God Bless Our Troops!!)
To: Sacajaweau
But they have proved it wasn't painted. Do a little reading, because that much is certain.
To: Sacajaweau
Too perfect: Actually, that is a good point. I think back to when I first started examining the Shroud, and convinced that it was not authentic but a hoax, and wanting that to be the case, I realize how much I thought that the apparent perfection was reason to doubt that it was genuine. It took me years to change my mind.
The images are at once like rare and exceptional art, yet so unlike art. They are like subtle photographs and yet so unlike photographs. A truly natural explanation requires that a chemical reaction starts and ends. And this is key; the reaction must end sufficiently late for there to be discernible images. And, it must end early enough that the images are not oversaturated. Analysis of the images shows no saturation plateaus. Timing is everything. In photographic terms this is correct exposure. Is this mere luck?
It is not just correct exposure that is at play here. Good focus, suitable contrast and smooth and realistic gradations between light and dark areas also are important. (Resolution is better than 0.4 cm at a distance of 1.1 cm indicating the image production mechanism must be highly anisotropic).
Is it serendipitous that the highlights and shadows of these images appear as though created by reflected light? This visual quality is essential for our minds to be able to see the images as realistic pictures with perceived three-dimensionality? But then we discover that they really are encoded with three-dimensional information. And images made with reflected light are not.
And there is the problem of medical accuracy. The nails are through the wrists. The blood, the forensic experts tell us, can only have occurred if the body was in direct contact with the cloth. You cannot paint on medically correct blood clots even with real blood. The wounds, the actual contusion are medically accurate in ways that are only understood by modern pathology at a microscopic level.
And the image is in a chemical layer that is so thin that you cannot see it with the naked eyes. Images on the Shroud emerge from discrete little bits of color in all the right places on the cloth. The bits of color are on the fibers in a fine carbohydrate layer that coats the topmost fibers. When we look at the Shroud, what we perceive as different shades of yellow is the result of visual blending. To some extent the saturation or intensity of the color has some effect. In some places it is slightly darker than in other places. But mostly it the result of the size and quantity of the bits of chemically altered carbohydrate layers on the crown of fibers. (Look at this picture from across the room. Only one color is used to create three different shades.)
Pixel, a word that means picture element, is often used to describe these tiny bits of color. The word halftone, borrowed from the way pictures are printed in books and newspapers, is also used. Pixel, in current usage, implies microscopic or near-microscopic dots that are "on" or "off" and neatly organized. As the accompanying microscopic pictures shows, the implementation of the coloring is more like lines used for shading in an engraving. The lines are on the surface only, on fibers that are a fraction of the width of a single hair in a fine artist's paint brush. Paint, in any thick medium, would have resulted in a complete covering over the fibers. Thin paint or dye of any kind would have soaked through, by capillary action, to fibers below. But when image fibers are moved aside with probing needles, the fibers below are clear and uncolored. And when adhesive tape is applied to the image fibers, small bits of the carbohydrate coating (either bearing image or not) are pulled away exposing clear cellular fibers. In fact, flakes of color can be seen where it separated from the fiber and stuck to tape used to collect particulate samples from the Shroud. You can see the thin coat of color through a microscope and it is hard to imagine how an artist could have accomplished this.
There is no way, short of laser precision drawing, that this image could be so perfect. That is the problem in the so perfect analogy. But I know where you are coming from. It took me a long time to become convinced. And I dont necessarily want to convince you. I just want you to appreciate the evidence at hand. I appreciate the problem this all too perfect image presents us with. I think most shroud scholars do as well.
Shroudie
64
posted on
04/12/2004 2:34:13 PM PDT
by
shroudie
To: Ichneumon; Swordmaker
No, it doesn't. For example the hoaxer/artist/whatever could have used what is now the "back" side of the cloth during one of his earlier imaging attempts, which didn't work well and left only a faint impression. Later after refining his techniques he succeeded more to his liking on the other side.
I'm constantly amazed at how credulous shroud believers can be, declaring "this proves it, no other explanation is possible!" at every little observation.
What I'm amazed by is the way some people have assumed that the phenomenon couldn't possibly be what it's purported to be and then content themselves with a degree of facile debunking that's shocking in its lack of rigor. But it's another example of the way belief generally works (and I'm not speaking about specifically religious belief)--people operate on the basis of an idea or image of the way they think things are--if experience doesn't contradict the belief, the belief is maintained. If even the most minimal similarities with the belief in experience are noted, they are used to reinforce the belief. If someone feels it to his advantage to discount something that threatens the belief, he never gets any more rigorous than he needs to in order to dismiss the challenge as something innocuous or at least irrelevant.
65
posted on
04/12/2004 4:07:56 PM PDT
by
aruanan
.
66
posted on
04/12/2004 4:40:23 PM PDT
by
firewalk
To: RightOnline
Sorry. You haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. Well gosh, how can anyone withstand such a well-reasoned rebuttal loaded with supporting evidence? I'm utterly devastated. Oh, wait, no I'm not.
If you think you can actually demosntrate that I "haven't the fainted idea what I'm talking about", feel free to make an actual attempt at it, but simple gradeschool taunts like your post hardly qualify.
To: shroudie
With 100% percent alignment? The linked article says nothing about "100% alignment". Are you presuming too much due to your desire that this article is more conclusive than it may actually be?
Remember, we are talking about a discovery appearing in a peer-reviewed scientific journal which requires absolute confirmation of the methodology (though not necessarily the conclusions) that completely adheres to strict scientific methodology.
No, it doesn't. Peer-review helps to weed out the more obviously shaky articles before they make publication, but you're vastly overstating the process when you claim that it "requires absolute confirmation of the methodology".
To: an amused spectator
I guess Joe's nickel PhD trumps the knowledge of Swedish textile expert Dr. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg. She must have been so busy being awed by the stitching "forgery" that she forgot to look at the actual cloth. ;-)
You mean Joe Nickell's PhD in Art?? or is it in English? It certainly is NOT in any hard or even soft science.
69
posted on
04/12/2004 6:15:33 PM PDT
by
Swordmaker
(This tagline shut down for renovations and repairs. Re-open June of 2001.)
To: shroudie
Again, there is no hint of image between the two superficial images on the faces of the cloth. There is no capilarity and no penetration of the image into the fibers themselves. It has always been noted that the degree of detail on the shroud is greatest on the face and head. In fact, that observation was one of the arguments for the head image being produced AFTER the body image in some of the off the wall photograph theories. The fact that the face IS replicated on the reverse would tend to indicate to me that the modality of image formation WAS stronger in the head area. Now THAT is interesting.
70
posted on
04/12/2004 6:26:09 PM PDT
by
Swordmaker
(This tagline shut down for renovations and repairs. Re-open June of 2001.)
To: aruanan
What I'm amazed by is the way some people have assumed that the phenomenon couldn't possibly be what it's purported to be and then content themselves with a degree of facile debunking that's shocking in its lack of rigor. Joe Nickell repeats his mantra from 1998... ignoring any scholarship and research done since. He can just sweep scientific findings under the carpet by declaring them "psuedoscience" performed by "believers."
Some Freepers do the same thing, hanging their arguments on long disproved "science" such as Dr. McCrone's ludicrous claim that the Shroud image is merely "tempera paint" ignoring much more sophisticated tests that categorically prove his assertion wrong,
Others are convinced their English language Bible's words (and their understanding of their meanings) are proof of the original writers actual words despite clear presentations of the original meanings, derivations, and comparative usages showing just exactly the opposite.
Nickell participates in all of that and more.
71
posted on
04/12/2004 6:50:07 PM PDT
by
Swordmaker
(This tagline shut down for renovations and repairs. Re-open June of 2001.)
To: Ichneumon
Yes, I overspoke when I said absolute methodology. But you underspoke as well. As far as the alignment goes, it has nothing to do with what I want or don't want. I know Fanti and his work. I have not yet read the article but I have been in communications with him. It is a "solid" match.
I don't really desire anything in particular except factual knowledge about the Shroud. Thank you, for correcting my overstatement about peer review.
Shroudie
72
posted on
04/12/2004 7:38:01 PM PDT
by
shroudie
To: Swordmaker
>>The fact that the face IS replicated on the reverse would tend to indicate to me that the modality of image formation WAS stronger in the head area. Now THAT is interesting.
Curious. Let's assume the sudarium and shroud were both there in the tomb as described in the scriptures. If the sudarium was not left on the face, why was it left in the tomb at all? If it was on the face, wouldn't the image be weaker rather than stronger there?
To: Swordmaker
It is. One thought from Rogers is that it may have to do with ammonia -NH3 which tends to build up in the lungs and does emit through the mouth and nose. Ammonia might have served to enhance a Maillard reaction. Maillard reactions take place between reducing saccharides and compounds that contain a -NH2 (amine) group. But at this point that is speculation. And how do we explain that Fanti found similar imaging for the hands? There is just too much that we don't know, except that it does not lend support to the hoax theories; not at all.
Shroudie
74
posted on
04/12/2004 7:51:06 PM PDT
by
shroudie
To: Graymatter
Good question!
It would be left in the tomb because it contained blood shed in death. Even today, in Israel, after a bombing, blood is gathered up for burial. Jewish burial in the second-Temple period included blood shed in death.
The forensic evidence of the Sudarium suggests the cloth was removed at some point. In the case of Lazareth we are told that the napkin was over his face. But we don't know the various details from either Mishnah or Talmudic sources.
If the cloth was bloody and Jesus was washed, it is very likely that it was removed. There is no known reason for putting a bloody cloth back over a face but there is reason to leave it in the tomb.
Shroudie
75
posted on
04/12/2004 7:59:10 PM PDT
by
shroudie
To: Swordmaker
Others are convinced their English language Bible's words (and their understanding of their meanings) are proof of the original writers actual words despite clear presentations of the original meanings, derivations, and comparative usages showing just exactly the opposite.
Hey, if the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me!
76
posted on
04/12/2004 8:10:49 PM PDT
by
aruanan
To: Swordmaker
Please add me to your ping list
77
posted on
04/12/2004 8:27:31 PM PDT
by
lonevoice
(Some things have to be believed to be seen)
To: an amused spectator; shroudie
Can you elaborate on the Hungarian illustration? Post the illustration or link to it, and discuss further?
Reference - Hungarian Pray mss, Fol. 27v, Budapest of 1192-95 which clearly illustrates that the Shroud's full length image(s) were known in the 12th century. (See Ian Wilson, 1986, The Mysterious Shroud, Garden City, NY; Doubleday & Company, p.115. See also Bercovits, I. 1969, Dublin: Irish University Press. Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, pl. III.).
I thought that was a very interesting part of the PBS piece, probably because I've rekindled interest in art history. As I recall, the illustration is the oldest known work with Hungarian language, in addition to dating to the 12th century. It portrays holes which match a pattern on the shroud, and clearly was intended to show a herringbone pattern, IMO.
To: aruanan
Hey, if the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me! Moses must have been mighty partial to it too...
79
posted on
04/12/2004 10:27:23 PM PDT
by
Swordmaker
(This tagline shut down for renovations and repairs. Re-open June of 2001.)
To: Swordmaker
Thanks for the ping!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-89 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson