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.

chokmah

Very, very neat!

Evil Sentient Duck

Here is another thread on this:
SoT
Kewl....

Clivedurdle

BBC .

leonarde

Only problem is: it's chronologically impossible:(above from: http://www.whitington.com/shroud/ )

Da Vinci was born in 1452.

In general the 'neater' the solution the less it has to do with reality.....

Cheers!

Clivedurdle

That was addressed as well - two shrouds! The earlier one was got rid of as not that good a fake. There was a documentary on National Geographic about this but I cannot find a discussion of the actual programme - the programme notes do not match the programme!

This documentary showed how the shroud image is three separate images - one being leonardo's head, the other's possibly being perfect models he made to be proportionally correct - something no real body is!

We have someone competent to do it who likes jokes, we have the technology available - it seems the arabs had worked out the photographic potential of various chemicals, we have the availability of old grave shrouds - leonardo did do a bit of grave robbing for his anatomy studies.

Why not acknowledge it not as a fake but as a superb work of art by a genius?

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, 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).

leonarde

Several reasons:

1) if a medieval technique (photographic or non-photographic) of image formation had been developed, we would expect to find OTHER exemplars of the technique in the given time period. Yet NO other medieval art specimens show evidence of having been the product of such a technique.

2) we KNOW what medieval art based on the man-in-the-shroud theme looked like; it looked like this: http://www.shroud.com/bazant.htm (see especially last photo on page). Even an artistic neophyte should be able to tell the difference in appearance between the Shroud and the many imitations/copies.

3) Even if we put aside the CHRONOLOGICAL problem with a Da Vinci authorship, there's another one: Da Vinci kept a notebook or notebooks. There he recorded his ideas: for a helicopter (it was never built) and for many other things(some of which were ALSO not actualized). Yet NOWHERE in the notebook(s) is there any mention of the (posited) protophotographic technique. Furthermore there's no evidence that Da Vinci ever spoke to a living soul about such a technique. Or used it on any other 'work'.

4) I myself once asked (on line) the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) official photographer whether he (his name is Barrie Schwortz) had EVER met another professional photographer who claimed a form of protophotography could explain the image of the Shroud. His answer? Absolutely not. And rightly so: it shares SOME aspects of photography but diverges from photography in other aspects. (See: Schwortz's paper, "Is the Shroud of Turin a Medieval Photograph? A Critical Examination of the Theory"
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/orvieto.pdf ).

5) The 'medieval art' question is most pointedly examined here: http://www.shroud.com/piczek.htm . Isabel Piczek, professional artist, concludes that the materials are wrong, that the image of the Shroud shows none of the deterioration over the centuries that true artwork shows. Etc.

6) Medieval art also won't explain why the blood on the Shroud was found via tests to be true blood; typically medieval artists used vermillion for the appearance of blood.

7) Medieval art won't explain OTHER aspects of physiological verisimilitude manifest in minute and painstaking examination of the Shroud. Unless we posit that Da Vinci (or whoever the 'medieval artist' was) scourged and crucified a real medieval man to get the effect. This borders on the fantastic.

8) Medieval art ALSO won't explain why the Shroud was found in the 1970s to have had pollen on it of Near East provenance, a finding confirmed by Israeli experts more recently (here for short version: http://www.shroud.com/danin2.htm And here for longer version: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/daninx.pdf ).

9) The 'medieval art explanation' ALSO won't explain the images of flowers seen in enhanced photographs of the Shround, images confirmed by the Israeli botanists who wrote the above paper (see page 3 of long version). The Near Eastern plant species of the images are the SAME as those of many of the pollen specimens. The Israeli botanists pinpoint the Jerusalem area as the most likely origin for the Shroud based on botanical considerations only.

10) The 'medieval art explanation' won't explain the surprising congruencies between the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo: in blood type and in blood flows. The Sudarium has a KNOWN history going back to at least the 8th Century and this implies the Shroud is at least that old.

11) The 'medieval art explanation' won't explain why the Shroud was found to contain bits of limestone in it identical to a type of limestone found in the Jerusalem area (see: http://www.historicaljesusquest.com/limestone.htm ).

Etc.

spin

Each time this subject comes up, I think it is so inconsequential. People don't really read the christian testament on the idea of the ummm shroud.

Two distinct words are used in the gospels for the covering used on the body of Jesus, sindon and oQonia (from oQonion). The first is simply cloth in unspecified form, while the latter is a word for cloth in the diminuitive, plural, suggesting strips, ie bandages. The gospel of John makes it clear that Jesus was wrapped not in a single piece of cloth, but in bandages, while Matt 27:59 just uses the generic word linen, Joseph wrapped Jesus in clean linen. This doesn't say in what form the linen was in. In fact sindon is used by Herodotus, 2.86.6, as the material used for the bandages of mummies. The relationship between sindon and oQonia is brought into light in the gospel of Luke, for while in 23:53 Jesus is wrapped in linen (sindon), in 24:12 what were left behind in the tomb are bandages (oQonia), ie they cash out to be the same thing, the linen is in the form of strips, not a single piece.

It seems odd that so much time has been wasted over what is apparently a mediaeval practice of wrapping the corpse in a single piece of cloth, as it would seem that the gospels indicate that that was not the case in the Jesus story. People have just been totally wasting their time on an anachronism. :wave:


spin

leonarde

Speaking of 'spinning': nice job!

About 3 years ago I participated in my first Shroud thread here at Infidels. And THEN (and in most of my experiences in discussing the Shroud) the Shroud was said to be a forgery primarily because of the radiocarbon test . So we're making progress. Of a sort.

Only problem is: by their nature Jewish funeral shrouds of antiquity have seldom come down to us in any number: they rotted along with the corpse. Even if they survived they were viewed as ritually impure and were usually disposed of (probably by burning). So making sweeping statements about what such shrouds were/are like and of what material(s) and in how many pieces is always dangerous. Even when one is a NATIVE speaker of ancient Aramaic/koine Greek. And of course there are no such speakers alive today.

But occasionally a specimen of some sort of 1st Century shroud is found:
http://www.rense.com/general60/turin.htm
Here (in English!) the singular is used: 'this shroud'. Apparently from a single piece burial cloth . Of the first half of the 1st Century. From a tomb of the Jerusalem area. But that doesn't mean that they all were that way.......Materials varied. So probably did number of pieces......