Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ArchAngel · 03-26-2005, 12:08 PM

Evidence gathered by humans is inconsequential. We won't know the truth about anything until we go to heaven so don't even bother. Our weak minds laughable attempts at understanding are futile. It's more useful to spend your time memorizing bible verses instead of trying to decipher Satan's attempts of confusing the 'intellectuals' with so called evidence.

JEST2ASK · 03-26-2005, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Did we post this one yet? I found it on Steve Carlson's blog, Hypotyposeis, always a good resource.

Anyway, this man has realized how the Shroud was made, without chemicals, but instead, with light. It's brilliant.

I just recently discovered "The Second Messiah" by Christopher Knight & Robert Lomas ... as I have not read too far into it ... has anyone else encountered the book and what to make of the theory it is connected to Templar Knights and Masonic rituals ..

as I said do not laugh to hard ..

spin · 03-26-2005, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leonarde

Speaking of 'spinning': nice job!

I love it when people who have zippo to say attempt to be witty about the poster's name!
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

For information about the shroud that people attribute to Jesus one turns to understandings of our only sources, the gospels. If there were no gospel stories then one wouldn't be mucking about with the idea. We are, like it or not, faced with the evidence of the gospels as the closest thing we know of to a primary source to the shroud story. They do not support the notion of a single-piece shroud. On the contrary they falsify the proposition, as Jesus is shown in two separate gospels as having been wrapped in bandage type cloths. Yet as the process was known in the middle ages, when the shroud appeared, it was natural to think that Jesus was also wrapped in one. This is normal: Jesus is painted in early renaissance clothes and with hair and beard style that was current in the early renaissance. So, before even looking at the shroud, one needs some confirmation that such things were actually used at the time attributed to Jesus in contradiction to the gospel indications of bandages.

I know about the c14 tests. I know about the pollen. I know about the reconstructions. These are all post hoc dealings with an entrenched belief, a belief which apparently sprung up in the age of relics. People believed Jesus was buried somewhat like they were. The fact is there is no evidence to back that belief at all. The linguistic evidence from the gospels is clear. Bandages not single cloths.

Stop wasting your time defending your belief. This is not the place.

spin

epepke · 03-26-2005, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Javaman

I'd always felt the most compelling evidence agains it being a burial shroud and more likely a hoax/fake was that the picture is all wrong. Others have made the same point for years that the facial image should be flattened out and not the reasonably proportional picture that we see.

Yes. What surprises me is that so few people notice this. There is some serious boneheadedness going on.

I think it's a rubbing of a bas relief.

Quote:

Yes, there are other posibilities like the shroud being suspended above the body (not a 'shroud' and not something I'm aware was done) or very loosely laid across the body (nose/forehead/chin would be seen well but not the cheeks).

The latter would not eliminate the distortion. If seen arguments by Christians that two angels held the "shroud" taut over the body, but it just goes to show how ludicrous people can get.

Clivedurdle · 03-27-2005, 03:18 AM

This may well be an artefact of Jesus Schwortz is quoted as saying on this link!

This is the programme I saw, but I cannot find discussion of what it said in it about Da Vinci doing this and how he did it using early photographic techniques. The documentary covers all the issues raised about getting the image on the cloth - and the bloodstains etc. A recently dead body was used, which was crucified, photographic techniques including camera obscura, and it seems we do not have a complete record of Da Vinci's notes.

What is difficult about getting a cloth from the middle east, Italy had very extensive trade routes then?

Clivedurdle · 03-27-2005, 03:37 AM

British Library

Quote:

The notebooks are where Leonardo recorded his own ideas as well as existing designs and philosophies for reference. They were never intended for publication. After his death in France on 2 May 1519, Francesco Melzi, his pupil, brought many of his manuscripts and drawings back to Italy. Melzi's heirs, who had no idea of the importance of the manuscripts, gradually disposed of them.

Despite this, over 5,000 pages still exist in Leonardo's 'mirror writing', from right to left. Over the centuries the sheets have been split up, and few notebooks survive in anything like their original form. Some even remained undiscovered until 1966, when they were found by chance in the archives of the Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid.

Clivedurdle · 03-27-2005, 03:45 AM

Got it! .

leonarde · 03-27-2005, 11:31 AM

Worth looking at:
http://www.mysan.de/article63190.html
which begins:

Quote:

NEW YORK, March 24 /PRNewswire/ -- Over the years there have been numerous attempts to create images like those on the Shroud of Turin. Someone suggested that they might have been painted with lemon juice to create a reverse bleaching effect. Others have suggested that the images might have been formed by draping a cloth over a scorching hot statue, by painting them with pigment dust or by photographing a corpse using some unknown medieval photographic process. The latest such attempt to explain the images was recently proposed by Nathan Wilson, a 26-year-old English professor at New St. Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho. Wilson created an image by painting a picture on a pane of glass positioned over a piece of linen that he left in the sun for several days. The resulting image, caused by sun-bleaching away the background while leaving darker color where the painted picture on the glass masked out the sun, is called a shadow shroud. The image Wilson produced is similar in a few ways to the Shroud of Turin images.

ABC World News Tonight reported the story on March 22, 2005. In a segment entitled, "Shrouded in Mystery No More," anchor Peter Jennings stated, "The Shroud of Turin has mystified scientists for years. Now a literature professor from Idaho says he can prove it’s a fake."

"I was amazed at the national television coverage," said shroud researcher Dan Porter in a letter to eighty Shroud of Turin researchers. "Neither Peter Jennings nor ABC’s Bill Blakemore, who reported the story, seemed aware of any substantive facts about the shroud. It seems as though they did not do any research and did not consult any scientists to see if the shadow shroud made any sense. It does not."

Porter explains his rationale on the Shroud Story website at http://www.shroudstory.com/.

Anthropologist William Meacham, a Research Fellow at the Centre of Asian Studies at the University of Hong Kong, added, "I would like to know how this unscientific idea could possibly get such major coverage, when it so clearly and obviously does not fit the known facts about the Shroud image."[...]

Happy Wonderer · 03-27-2005, 02:49 PM

That was not a very convincing rebuttal. The actual article can be found here.

Quote:

Wilson calls his creation the Shadow Shroud. In creating a picture that visually mimics two or three qualities of the Shroud, Wilson's method works. It works rather nicely. In fact, the movement of the sun over the painted picture on the glass -- a moving shadow -- creates an effect something like the so-called 3D encoding of the image on the Shroud. But that is as far as it goes. It is not three-dimensional at all.

The 'so-called 3D encoding of the shroud' is not truly three-dimensional either. The author presented nothing to indicate that the 'encoding' of the shroud varies in any way from the encoding by Wilson's method.

Quote:

It is a well known fact that the images on the Shroud of Turin are superficial. At any location on the real Shroud where there is a brownish colored image, the image is confined to the outermost two or three fibers of the thread. Look beneath them, inside the thread, and you will find near-white fibers. It is brownish only on the outside...

The picture on the right is a close up some Shroud of Turin fibers. The brown color is the caramel-like product, a melanoidin; the same stuff that gives beer its color, toasted bread its brown, and bodies their tan from sunless tanning lotions.

Now wait, when arguing that it is not a painting the author claims

Quote:

Scientists using infrared, ultraviolet, X-ray fluorescence, and microchemistry analysis have clearly demonstrated that pigments, paints, dyes or any form of liquid or solid colorant are not used to create the image. There is no evidence of capillary action between fibers and no soaking in of any kind in the image area. In fact, it has been shown that the image is a direct result of a chemical change to the fiber -- dehydration and oxidation of the cellulose.

Which is it? Is the brown color an amorphous caramel-like substance adhering to just a few fibers or a direct result of a chemical change to the fiber? The latter would be consistant with Wilson's theory, the former with painting.

The author then argues that glass wasn't available at the time that the author believes that the cloth dates from:

Quote:

Yet, it wasn't until the nineteenth century that glass suitable for Wilson's shadow shroud could be produced. The first flat plate glass wasn't produced until 1688. Before then, plate glass was blown plate, which was rare, very limited in size and very distorted. Glass, very rare in 1356, was poor quality with many imperfections. According to the PPG Industries website:

This is silly; Wilson painted on plate glass only because creating an image on stained glass is time consuming and expensive nowdays. The first reference to a stained glass window is in AD 999, so large glass pictures existed a millenia before the dating of the shroud. In fact, the easiest way to produce the shroud would have been to lay a cloth beneath a stained glass window. One could imagine that an image was originally formed that way by accident, which gave the original forger the idea.

hw

Happy Wonderer · 03-27-2005, 03:58 PM

(Note that when I said "millenia" I should have said 350 years. All this technology and I can't even subtract properly!)

hw

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-26-2005, 12:08 PM	#11
ArchAngel Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: USA Posts: 164	Evidence gathered by humans is inconsequential. We won't know the truth about anything until we go to heaven so don't even bother. Our weak minds laughable attempts at understanding are futile. It's more useful to spend your time memorizing bible verses instead of trying to decipher Satan's attempts of confusing the 'intellectuals' with so called evidence.

03-27-2005, 03:18 AM	#15
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	This may well be an artefact of Jesus Schwortz is quoted as saying on this link! This is the programme I saw, but I cannot find discussion of what it said in it about Da Vinci doing this and how he did it using early photographic techniques. The documentary covers all the issues raised about getting the image on the cloth - and the bloodstains etc. A recently dead body was used, which was crucified, photographic techniques including camera obscura, and it seems we do not have a complete record of Da Vinci's notes. What is difficult about getting a cloth from the middle east, Italy had very extensive trade routes then?

03-27-2005, 03:45 AM	#17
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Got it! .

03-27-2005, 03:58 PM	#20
Happy Wonderer Veteran Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Washington, the least religious state Posts: 5,334	(Note that when I said "millenia" I should have said 350 years. All this technology and I can't even subtract properly!) hw

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.