Posted on 03/24/2005 4:27:53 AM PST by frogjerk
SPOKANE, Washington — Nathan Wilson is an English teacher with no scientific training, but he thinks he knows how Jesus' (search) burial cloth was made and he thinks it's not a physical sign of the resurrection. In other words, in Wilson's estimation, the Shroud of Turin (search) is a fake — produced with some glass, paint and old cloth. And that theory, especially with Easter this weekend, has so-called "Shroudies" a buzz. "A lot of religious people are upset," said Wilson, 26, who teaches at New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho. Wilson is himself an evangelical Christian (search) but said his views on the shroud don't change his faith. "I'm a Bible-believing Christian who believes in the resurrection completely without a doubt," he said. The English instructor believes a medieval forger could have painted the image of a crucified man on a pane of glass, laid it on the linen, then left it outside in the sun to bleach the cloth for several days. As the linen lightened, the painted image of the man remained dark on the cloth, creating the equivalent of a photo negative.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
You make excellent points.
At least Doc30 is honest. He stated clearly that as a chemist he feels the carbon dating is conclusive, so what he's doing is using that statement as a basis for his analysis and working backwerds to figure out how to fill in the details -- no matter how irrational the details turn out to be.
A "contact print" would not be affected by that.
Would you agree in a research team doing the carbon testing again since there is some discussion/debate regarding the area that was tested previously? Why or Why not?
Excellent point!
I wouldn't bet on that. The knowledge of the camera obscura and its workings predates Christ. And there is varying arguments on when the first one came into use. Ranging from BC to the 16th century. And many suggest that the first operational camera obscura came into use in the 900s.
The same ones trying to debunk the shroud?
I'd like to see one of these "skeptics" actually do it. If it could have been done 1100 years ago (based on the flawed carbon test) or further, they ought to be able to do it today without too much trouble.
Course it is possible both the shround AND Nathan WIlson are FAKES..
Thanks for making the point that this "theory" requires, I think, that the pane of glass would have had to have been at least the same size as each of the two images on the shroud. To the best of my knowledge, making a single piece of clear flat glass that size was beyond the technology of the mid 15th century. Even if they could have done it, it would have been a one of a kind expeiment in glass making and would probably have been famous in its own right. They could make glass in small sections, as you'd see in a stained glass window, but even then the glass was not perfectly flat and tended to distort light coming through.
One several shows on the History Chanell I have seen on the Shroud that put forth the camera obscura as a possible method did in fact produce one using the camera obscura.
Occam's razor.
More testing can always gain insight into the cloth. The problem is that so much of the testing is destructive in nature, and there will always be cynics that will either never trust the results unless they match their preconceptions, or will question the chain of evidence regardless of how vigorously the samples are safe guarded, etc.,. Also, just because we cannot exactly repoduce the shroud image does not mean it cannot be done. It was done before, so it can be done again.
Also, just because we cannot exactly reproduce the shroud image does not mean it cannot be done. It was done before, so it can be done again.
From a religious perspective: If you believe that this may be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ and you believe in the Resurrection, it cannot be done again...
The image on the cloth is real. That meant a physical change has occurred to the material of the cloth. That means a physical phenomenon caused it. That means that if the physcial cause is identified it can be reproduced. Just becasue we don't know how, doesn't mean we won't learn or discover how and then be able to reproduce it.
I understand you are coming from a scientific point of view and I accept that. I am talking from a religious point of view on this. Kind of like arguing apples and oranges but so what. This is FR.
Just because a a phenomenon is physical, doesn't necessarily mean it can be reproduced. From a religious point of view, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which possibly caused this imprint, will never happen again.
The technique described above in the article is very much like camera obscura
But it would not produce the 3-dimensional effect discovered only very recently
See:
http://www.shroudstory.com/shadowshroud.htm
One small excerpt:
It is a well known fact that the images on the Shroud of Turin are superficial. On any given thread where there is a brownish colored image, the image is confined to the outermost two or three fibers. Look beneath them, inside the thread, and you will find near-white fibers.
On the Shroud of Turin the tip of the nose is brown. That is so because a superficial color has formed there; and it is not at all deep. Probe with a needle and you will see the white fibers throughout the thread. Chemical analysis tells us that the brown color at the surface is an amorphous caramel-like substance adhering to just a few fibers. On the other hand, the tip of the nose on Wilson's Shadow Shroud is brown because it was not bleached by the sun. We don't need to look beneath the surface of Wilson's image to realize that below the top two or three fibers, the fibers will also be brown; for it is impossible with sunshine to bleach the inside of a thread without bleaching the outside.
Dan
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.