Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 03-29-2005, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leonarde

But ANOTHER (in my view insuperable problem) with (all types of) photography as an image-making mechanism is: photography ALWAYS produces a left-right reversal; this is NOT the way the image of the Shroud is: it is without such a reversal....

How do you reach the conclusion that there is no image reversal? Isn't the image reversal in photographs made apparent by comparison with the object photographed?

Naked Ape · 03-29-2005, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leonarde

But ANOTHER (in my view insuperable problem) with (all types of) photography as an image-making mechanism is: photography ALWAYS produces a left-right reversal; this is NOT the way the image of the Shroud is: it is without such a reversal....

Tell me, how does one achieve this universal left-right reversal that you claim, if you are making a contact print? If you lay the 'negative' on the paper (or shroud), how would this reversal happen?

Cheers,

Naked Ape

PhilosopherJay · 03-29-2005, 10:30 AM

Hi Clivedurdle,

Why attribute to Da Vinci as opposed to any other artist of the time period?
There were hundreds of artists workshops in the city of Florence alone in the 15th century. These people were all innovative and experimented with new techniques and materials.

They were also quite secretive. Filippo Brunelleschi imported workmen from
other towns and burnt his drawings afterwards when producing the Dome of Florence Cathedral. He did not want other artists stealing his secrets.

It is not at all surprising that someone who produced the image on the shroud would want to keep his technique secret and not produce other examples of it. Besides keeping trade secrets for financial reasons, there was also the little matter of black magic. Something as innovative as linen painting on glass could easily have been construed as a form of black magic. Black magic was quite illegal and Christian Churches tortured and executed many thousands of poor fellows and dames for its practice at the time.

Warmly,

PhilosophyerJay

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

Clivedurdle · 03-29-2005, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Got it! .

May we have some discussion of this site?

Happy Wonderer · 03-29-2005, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leonarde

In fact in my immediately preceding post I linked TWO websites. It would help if in that situation you would indicate WHICH ONE (and if possible which PAGE) you are referring to (which you have still not done). I ASSUME you mean the second one(ie shroudstory) since that is the multi-page website.

Oh dear, I guess I wasn't clear enough again. The page that I referred to as a 'rebuttal' was http://www.shroudstory.com/shadowshroud.htm which is exactly the page that I linked to and that you later quoted and thanked me for!

Quote:

But the purpose of 'stained glass' then, as now, was to depict scenes, frequently religiously-themed ones.

Like scenes depicting Jesus?

Quote:

It was DECORATIVE. It was NOT to direct light for photographic purposes (as far as we know based on the historical record).

This is an incredibly weak argument. Who knows, perhaps we have discovered a use of stained glass in medieval times that we did not know of before. Sunlight is a powerful bleaching agent -- a rug that I own has the partial image of a chair burned into it in reverse. It is in front of a window with no screen (I need to get around to that someday) and a chair that I never move. Perhaps some clever person noticed that effect in church one day.

Quote:

Even in the early-to-mid 19th Century, when we KNOW photography was feeling its sea legs, there were no instances (to my knowledge) of the pioneer photographers using stained glass of the medieval type.

Maybe we have one here. I think that it is a misnomer to call the person who came up with the shroud to be a 'pioneer photographer' since no photographic techniques were involved -- not even a pinhole!

Quote:

The same evolution in quality of glass can be seen in the evolution of the microscope; (partial)
http://inventors.about.com/od/mstart...icroscopes.htm

So what? The technique in question uses no lens!

Quote:

But ANOTHER (in my view insuperable problem) with (all types of) photography as an image-making mechanism is: photography ALWAYS produces a left-right reversal; this is NOT the way the image of the Shroud is: it is without such a reversal....
Cheers!

Already taken care of by others; I'd add the point that the proposed method is very similar to a contact print.

hw

Sparrow · 03-30-2005, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The 11th century saw the emergence, in Germany, of new ways of making sheet glass by blowing spheres, swinging these out to form cylinders, cutting these while still hot, and then flattening the sheets. This technique was perfected in 13th century Venice.

More fascinating information about glass can be found at the Wikipedia .

So obviously, whether you date the object now known as the Shroud of Turin as having first appeared in 1355 or 1494, sheets of glass were available. Not modern plate glass, but that was not necessary for the technique in question. But neither is glass needed. Any opaque object can leave behind an image by allowing exposed materials to fade in the sunlight. Sheet metal or wood could have been used instead of paint on glass to make such a contact print.

Noting that there is no history whatsoever of the Shroud before 1355 or so, I'm inclined to believe the radiocarbon dating is accurate. But even if it is not and the cloth really is old enough, how do we know the image is that old? And if the image is that old, how do we know of whom the image is? In other words, if Jesus walked up to you right now on the street, how would you know it was him?

greyline · 04-01-2005, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

In other words, if Jesus walked up to you right now on the street, how would you know it was him?

If the Bible is true because the Bible says so, then I'd know the guy was Jesus when he told me so.

Vorkosigan · 04-01-2005, 05:48 AM

Does the Shroud have any marks that could be construed as evidence of flaws/bubbles in the glass?

Sparrow · 04-01-2005, 06:01 AM

The glass had no flaws. It was divinely inspired.

Amaleq13 · 04-01-2005, 08:36 AM

I don't think there has been any evidence presented, compelling or otherwise, to suggest that the technique requires flat plate glass. All we've really got is a hypothesis that the image could not be produced by glass of the quality typical of the times and another suggesting it could be done with stained glass.

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

04-01-2005, 05:48 AM	#38
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Does the Shroud have any marks that could be construed as evidence of flaws/bubbles in the glass?

04-01-2005, 06:01 AM	#39
Sparrow Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Atlanta Posts: 1,077	The glass had no flaws. It was divinely inspired.

04-01-2005, 08:36 AM	#40
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	I don't think there has been any evidence presented, compelling or otherwise, to suggest that the technique requires flat plate glass. All we've really got is a hypothesis that the image could not be produced by glass of the quality typical of the times and another suggesting it could be done with stained glass.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.