Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bill Snedden · 03-20-2002, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
Indeed, Anunnaki him/herself partly confirms, apparently unwittingly, precisely WHY it is not a painting.

Actually, no. Anunnaki was providing an example of why he believes that the shroud cannot be an image transferred onto the cloth directly from a human body. The Discovery program example purported to demonstrate that the physical characteristics of the human head would produce a different 3-d image on the shroud than actually appears. A painting would not be subject to this limitation.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

leonarde · 03-20-2002, 05:57 AM

Since a couple posters have expressed, albeit in
skeptical terms, interest in the 3D aspects of the image (note: the image, not the Shroud), I thought I would post something from a source I already cited:
Barry Schwortz, the official photographer of the
Shroud of Turin Research Project. Here from page
5 is what he says:

Quote:

Dimensional Encoding

The experiments conducted by the STURP team and other researchers have provided clear evidence that there is certain dimensional information encoded into the Shroud's image. This is often referred to as "three dimensional data". Of course, that is not technically correct since "three dimensional" implies 360 degrees of information. What we actually see in the Shroud image is an accurate dimensional relief, similar to that created by the bas relief art technique.
The result on the Shroud is a natural relief of a human form.
This dimensional data was first visualized by the STURP team in 1976 with an instrument known as the VP-8 Image Analyzer, a device used by NASA for mapping image density to vertical relief (Figure
5). It was further supported by the density/relief
mapping techniques used by several Italian researchers around the same period of time and verified in recent years by the work of an Italian
professional photographer and Shroud imaging expert using refined photographic edge enhancement
techniques. Of course, today it can also be done
using some of the latest digital imaging software
programs (Figure 6). The fact that all of these
techniques yield the exact same result clearly
confirms the existence of the dimensional data first visually revealed by the VP-8.
The STURP team concluded that there was a correlation between the density (or darkness) of
the image on the Shroud and the distance the cloth was from the body at the time the image was
formed. The researchers calculated that the image
on the Shroud was formed at a cloth-to-body distance of up to approximately 4 centimeters, but
beyond that, imaging did not occur. The closer the cloth was to the body, the darker the resulting image in that area, with the darkest part of the image being formed where there was direct contact between the two. The image became
proportionately lighter as the distance increased
until it reached the maximum imaging distance.

I omitted some footnote numbers but those
and a more complete treatment of "dimensional encoding" is available in the link I previously
provided. As the above makes clear, I spoke rather
loosely in calling the image "3D". I regret any
confusion this may have caused.
Cheers!

leonarde · 03-20-2002, 06:03 AM

The link again to the paper by Schwortz (6 pages
of text, 4 of figures and footnotes) is at
<a href="http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/orvieto.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/orvieto.pdf</a>

Anunnaki · 03-20-2002, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
Why have none of the last 2 or 3 posters addressed in ANY form what Isabel Piczek has to say about the technical details which rule out a painting?
Indeed, Anunnaki him/herself partly confirms, apparently unwittingly, precisely WHY it is not a
painting.
Using very vehement language to condemn something
which doesn't fit in with one's worldview doesn't
constitute persuasion of even the meagreest type.
Boro Nut, in particular, goes off his. Why should
the RC Church display something in the Vatican
simply because YOU think that that is where it ought to be displayed? History leaves its own
disparate residue: some artifacts of colonial and
early post-colonial America are on display in Philadelphia instead of Washington DC. That in no
way reflects on the authenticity of the artifacts.

Apparently your faith and gullibilty have clouded your eyesight to such an extent that you can no longer read these posts correctly.

What I said is proof positive that the image on the shroud IS a painting and could NEVER EVER have been made by sweat or whatever being transferred to a clothe draped over a mans face.

Try the expirement I posted earlier before you start dancing and blowing your victory trumpet like a fool.

This is ridiculous. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: Anunnaki ]

leonarde · 03-20-2002, 09:01 AM

I already mentioned the Shroud of Turin Research
Project (a group of the 30 to 40 scientists and
technicians put together to study the Shroud in
1978 to 1981).
Here's a summary of their report at that time (1981):

Quote:

A Summary of STURP's Conclusions

Editor's Note: After years of exhaustive study and evaluation of the data, STURP issued its Final Report in 1981.
The following official conclusions are reproduced verbatim from that report:

"No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and
microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared
evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image
has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no
evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct
contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as
the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography. The basic problem from a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics.
Contrariwise, certain physical explanations which may be attractive are completely precluded by the
chemistry. For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one must have an explanation which is scientifically sound, from a physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint. At the present, this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best efforts of the members of the Shroud Team. Furthermore, experiments in physics and chemistry with old linen have failed to reproduce adequately the phenomenon presented by the Shroud of Turin. The scientific concensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself. Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat. However, there are no chemical or
physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of
physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately. Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery.
We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified
man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved."

leonarde · 03-20-2002, 09:25 AM

Posted by Anunnaki:

Quote:

What I said is proof positive that the image on the shroud IS a painting and could NEVER EVER have been made by sweat or whatever being transferred to a clothe draped over a mans face.

So you "disproved"
1) a theory that I never proposed.
2) a theory all but discounted 20 years ago by
authenticity adherents.
3) a theory which WAS advocated at one time by
some who thought the image was NOT 2000 years
old but a later one made by sweat etc. (ie a
subclass of debunkers)

Cheers!

leonarde · 03-20-2002, 10:39 AM

By way of an explication of my last post:
One of the two leading Shroud debunkers in the
English-speaking world is Joe Nickell whose 1983
book "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin" had a new
updated edition in 1987. In Chapter 7 he examines
two long-time theories about the image formation:
1) the Contact Hypothesis.
2) Vaporography.

The former goes back to the 14th Century when
Bishop D'Arcis (the local bishop for Lirey, France
where the Shroud was kept)wrote in a report to
Pope Clement that the Lirey dean and "his accomplices" were claiming that the image (of Jesus) had been impressed upon the cloth. Nickell
goes into various reasons why this could not have
been, citing among other thing the STURP report.
Nickell reports himself doing an experiment in 1977: putting semi-moist rouge on his face to make
a print. Nickell (remember, a Shroud debunker)came
to believe the Contact Hypothesis excludible
(see pages 78-81 of the book). In my next post I
will deal with the Vaporography Hypothesis.
Cheers!

Koyaanisqatsi · 03-20-2002, 11:36 AM

Fascinating. The STURP scientists concluded that they don't know how the image got there.

Who cares?

The only link to Jesus is if the Johannine account is true, which means we'd have to throw out Mark, Matthew and Luke, since none of them mention the alleged piercing.

John is the lattest dated and therefore least trustworthy and since we know that Mark was the original creater of the story and his account contradicts John's account, we can conclude two things:
<ol type="1">[*] John embellished Mark[*] They are both myths[/list=a]

Not to mention the fact that John states quite clearly that Joseph (and somebody named Nicodemus) wrapped the head separately from the body and no, I don't buy the nonsense with the othonia being the shroud and the sinhodana "binding straps;" what would be the point of binding a head with a strap that is already bound by the linen?

And while we're at it, why would Joseph (allegedly in so much of a hurry, according to Meacham, that he didn't have time to wash the body, another glaring problem never addressed by Meacham, et al; the tremendous amount of blood that would have streamed all over Jesus' body from the head allegedly arterial head wounds) put coins on Jesus' eyes if he's just wrapped the head in a burial cloth?

The reason coins were put on eyes was to keep them from popping open during a viewing. It is by no means a Jewish custom, since Jews do not view their dead prior to burial.

So, John's is the only gospel that mentions the piercing, which means that John's is the only gospel that relates to the shroud, which, in turn would mean that out of all of the gospels, only John's would be the most authentic, effectively negating all contradictory elements from Mark, Matthew and Luke.

And don't give me any crap about an argument from ommission, since John makes a big deal out of the piercing as being another prophecy fulfilled.

Since Mark's was the first to concoct this preposterous story and also closest to the alleged event, it stands to reason (if reason can be applied at all to this nonsense) that he would have mentioned every significant biblical prophecy in regard to Jesus' death and resurrection, yes? If not him, then Matthew, yes? If not Matthew, then surely Luke would have corrected the mistakes of the two others, but no.

It isn't until John that this prophecy gets magically "fulfilled."

Nonsense.

I have to side with Tercel in all of this. Whatever the shroud is, it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the lie of christianity.

leonarde · 03-20-2002, 12:27 PM

I should have explained in my last post that the
Contact Hypothesis is that DIRECT contact between
the cloth and body, involving perhaps sweat and/or
other bodily fluids in contact with burial spices
caused an impression in the Shroud.
Vaporography, on the other hand goes back a century or so ago when Paul Vignon hypothesized that there was some sort of interaction between spices and body vapors and the resulting vapors effected the Shroud image. Joe Nickell goes over
some of the problems with the theory and then notes:

Quote:

As a result of these insurmountable
objections, the "vaporography theory" -once regarded by sindonologists as all but proven---
is no longer given any credence by serious and knowledgeable investigators. In fact a report by
STURP concluded: "The evidence seems to be quite
conclusive for ruling out the Vignon vaporographic
theory as an image formation hypothesis."

from page 84 of Nickell's book.
Ergo no contemporary authenticity adherent reasonably conversant with the subject believes in
EITHER the Contact Hypothesis or the Vaporography
one.
Cheers!

leonarde · 03-20-2002, 12:35 PM

Posted by Koyaanisqatsi:

Quote:

The only link to Jesus is if the Johannine account is true, which means we'd have to throw out Mark, Matthew and Luke, since none of them mention the alleged piercing.
John is the lattest dated and therefore least trustworthy and since we know that Mark was the
original creater of the story and his account contradicts John's account, we can conclude two
things:

1.John embellished Mark
2.They are both myths

I confess that I am unable to follow this: there
SEEM to be leaps in logic. Can you clarify?

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

03-20-2002, 06:03 AM	#83
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	The link again to the paper by Schwortz (6 pages of text, 4 of figures and footnotes) is at <a href="http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/orvieto.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/orvieto.pdf</a>

03-20-2002, 10:39 AM	#87
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	By way of an explication of my last post: One of the two leading Shroud debunkers in the English-speaking world is Joe Nickell whose 1983 book "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin" had a new updated edition in 1987. In Chapter 7 he examines two long-time theories about the image formation: 1) the Contact Hypothesis. 2) Vaporography. The former goes back to the 14th Century when Bishop D'Arcis (the local bishop for Lirey, France where the Shroud was kept)wrote in a report to Pope Clement that the Lirey dean and "his accomplices" were claiming that the image (of Jesus) had been impressed upon the cloth. Nickell goes into various reasons why this could not have been, citing among other thing the STURP report. Nickell reports himself doing an experiment in 1977: putting semi-moist rouge on his face to make a print. Nickell (remember, a Shroud debunker)came to believe the Contact Hypothesis excludible (see pages 78-81 of the book). In my next post I will deal with the Vaporography Hypothesis. Cheers!

03-20-2002, 11:36 AM	#88
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	Fascinating. The STURP scientists concluded that they don't know how the image got there. Who cares? The only link to Jesus is if the Johannine account is true, which means we'd have to throw out Mark, Matthew and Luke, since none of them mention the alleged piercing. John is the lattest dated and therefore least trustworthy and since we know that Mark was the original creater of the story and his account contradicts John's account, we can conclude two things: <ol type="1">[] John embellished Mark[] They are both myths[/list=a] Not to mention the fact that John states quite clearly that Joseph (and somebody named Nicodemus) wrapped the head separately from the body and no, I don't buy the nonsense with the othonia being the shroud and the sinhodana "binding straps;" what would be the point of binding a head with a strap that is already bound by the linen? And while we're at it, why would Joseph (allegedly in so much of a hurry, according to Meacham, that he didn't have time to wash the body, another glaring problem never addressed by Meacham, et al; the tremendous amount of blood that would have streamed all over Jesus' body from the head allegedly arterial head wounds) put coins on Jesus' eyes if he's just wrapped the head in a burial cloth? The reason coins were put on eyes was to keep them from popping open during a viewing. It is by no means a Jewish custom, since Jews do not view their dead prior to burial. So, John's is the only gospel that mentions the piercing, which means that John's is the only gospel that relates to the shroud, which, in turn would mean that out of all of the gospels, only John's would be the most authentic, effectively negating all contradictory elements from Mark, Matthew and Luke. And don't give me any crap about an argument from ommission, since John makes a big deal out of the piercing as being another prophecy fulfilled. Since Mark's was the first to concoct this preposterous story and also closest to the alleged event, it stands to reason (if reason can be applied at all to this nonsense) that he would have mentioned every significant biblical prophecy in regard to Jesus' death and resurrection, yes? If not him, then Matthew, yes? If not Matthew, then surely Luke would have corrected the mistakes of the two others, but no. It isn't until John that this prophecy gets magically "fulfilled." Nonsense. I have to side with Tercel in all of this. Whatever the shroud is, it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the lie of christianity.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.