Shroud of Turin, real or fake

[Theodore Kurita]

I was just watching a PBS special not to long ago about the Shroud of Turin and some of the new evidence that it may actually date back to the 1st Century A.D.

Everything from microbiological evidence, to the water stains, and even more.

However, PBS was good enough to allow for some skeptical analysis and theories to be shown.

Here is a link:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_shroudchrist/clues.html

[Yahweh]

Regardless of whether it dated back to the 1 Century AD, the shroud is a fake.

When you wrap cloth to take an impression, your image is horizontally distorted and stretched. There is no distortion on the shroud, that, and the fact the image is in fact of a European Jesus, is reason enough to suggest it isnt authentic.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Regardless of whether it dated back to the 1 Century AD, the shroud is a fake.

When you wrap cloth to take an impression, your image is horizontally distorted and stretched. There is no distortion on the shroud, that, and the fact the image is in fact of a European Jesus, is reason enough to suggest it isnt authentic.

True... to a degree.

However, the skeptical evidence against the shroud suggests that the cloth may have been soaked in silver nitrate, which made the cloth more light sensitive.

With that, the cloth would act like a photograph.

All that would be needed is a cheap statue, hung in front of the cloth, for several days.

Over time, a darkening effect would show up on the cloth.


As for the evidence for the cloth however.

There is another cloth, the name escapes me at the moment, although I do remember that it is being held in a cathedral in Spain.


Anywho, this other cloth was a burial cloth that believers say was wrapped around Christs's head.

The documentation, and historical evidence for this cloth is irrefutable.

They took samples from both this burial cloth, and the Shroud of Turin.

The DNA matched both clothes.

In other words, they do deffinentely have it pinned down to the 1st century AD, same guy... etc. etc.

The article I posted goes at more length with this, and explains it much better than I could.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
As for the evidence for the cloth however.

There is another cloth, the name escapes me at the moment, although I do remember that it is being held in a cathedral in Spain.

Anywho, this other cloth was a burial cloth that believers say was wrapped around Christs's head.

The documentation, and historical evidence for this cloth is irrefutable.

They took samples from both this burial cloth, and the Shroud of Turin.

The DNA matched both clothes.

In other words, they do deffinentely have it pinned down to the 1st century AD, same guy... etc. etc.

The article I posted goes at more length with this, and explains it much better than I could.
Did they wrap Jesus in two cloths?

The case for the cloth is rather weak, there isnt much to say about it outside of the fact that its most likely a piece of artwork. Deliberately intended as a hoax, I dont know.

From Skepdic.com - Shroud of Turin (http://www.skepdic.com/shroud.html):
Moreover, that there are two cloths believed to have been wrapped around the dead body of Jesus does not strengthen the claim that the shroud is authentic, but weakens it. How many more cloths are there that we don't know about? Were they mass produced like pieces of the true cross, straw from Christ's manger, chunks of Noah's ark? That cloths in Spain and Italy have identical pollen grains and blood stains is a bit less than "clear evidence" that they originated at the same time, especially since there is clear evidence that the claim that they have identical pollen grains and blood stains is not true. But, even if it were true, it would be of little value in establishing that either of these cloths touched the body of Jesus.

[BroodingSkill]

My question would be, what practical reason, if any, would one use a burial cloth soaked in silver nitrate in the 1st century AD?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
They took samples from both this burial cloth, and the Shroud of Turin.

The DNA matched both clothes.


I'm skeptical about this statement.


The history of the Shroud of Turin can be best studied by dividing it into two specific categories. The general consensus of even the most doubting researchers is to accept a "1350" date as the beginning of the "undisputed" or documented history of the Shroud of Turin. This also happens to coincide with the approximate date determined by the 1988 carbon dating of the cloth. Although there is a significant amount of evidence supporting the Shroud's existence prior to the mid 1300's, much of it is, in fact, "circumstantial" and remains mostly unproven.

http://www.shroud.com/history.htm

One would think an article of cloth so important would be trumpeted in song and writings starting the day ofter the Christ "rose". But nothing is written until 1350. Weird.

[Iacchus]

I understand it may have been an elaborate hoax, pulled off by Leonardo Da Vinci, just to spite the Catholic Church.

[KS_SKEPTIC]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I understand it may have been an elaborate hoax, pulled off by Leonardo Da Vinci, just to spite the Catholic Church.

I saw the documentary on this and found it quite interesting!
There is yet no definitive proof at this time to prove that Da Vinci actually did it.

Nevertheless the Shroud of Turin is definitely a fake!!!

The problem with these people who keep trying to prove that it is the real thing.
Is that they're in denial (I'm not talking about the river in Egypt) about the Scientific findings that were done on the Shroud.
The only thing that keeps them going is faith (The belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof).
It most certainly isn't Science that's for sure!!!
They're getting very close to Pseudoscience in their investigation.
Pseudoscience: (Creationism, Intelligent-Design Theory, etc....) masquerading as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms.

Just for the sake of argument if the Shroud was real, then the Bible is wrong because it says the marks of the nails were in his hands and not his wrist as the Shroud shows.

The Bible by the way, should never be used as a source for Scientific information.
It's a book with a little bit of history and a lot of mythology and legends!!!

As far as I'm concerned when it comes to Science, I go where the data leads no matter what.

That makes the Shroud of Turin a Fake in my book!!!
The carbon dating puts it around 1350 C.E.
The head on the Shroud is out of proportion compared to the body.
The image on the Shroud is also flat as if painted. Etc. etc....
I support Science not superstition!!!

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by KS_SKEPTIC


I saw the documentary on this and found it quite interesting!
There is yet no definitive proof at this time to prove that Da Vinci actually did it.

Nevertheless the Shroud of Turin is definitely a fake!!!

The problem with these people who keep trying to prove that it is the real thing.
Is that they're in denial (I'm not talking about the river in Egypt) about the Scientific findings that were done on the Shroud.
The only thing that keeps them going is faith (The belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof).
It most certainly isn't Science that's for sure!!!
They're getting very close to Pseudoscience in their investigation.
Pseudoscience: (Creationism, Intelligent-Design Theory, etc....) masquerading as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms.

Just for the sake of argument if the Shroud was real, then the Bible is wrong because it says the marks of the nails were in his hands and not his wrist as the Shroud shows.

The Bible by the way, should never be used as a source for Scientific information.
It's a book with a little bit of history and a lot of mythology and legends!!!

As far as I'm concerned when it comes to Science, I go where the data leads no matter what.

That makes the Shroud of Turin a Fake in my book!!!
The carbon dating puts it around 1350 C.E.
The head on the Shroud is out of proportion compared to the body.
The image on the Shroud is also flat as if painted. Etc. etc....
I support Science not superstition!!!

I wouldn't equate these people to being the same as Creationists or IDers.

However, as for the hand one, there is actually a decent amount of forensic evidence that can be derived from the shroud itself.

Yes, Jesus was nailed in the hands, and it shows that in the shroud.

However, the place on the hand where it was nail was put into the persons hand was in a location that could actually support several hundred pounds.

Has anybody actually looked at the evidence presented and critiqued it, or are you people just going to try to give a dry run around of it, avoiding the question at hand.


You people keep addressing other points, but you never address the article I posted above, and give a good critique of it.


The place where the Carbon Dating sample was taken was the MOST HANDLED CORNER OF THE SHROUD.

There were massive amounts of bacteria on that corner that could have easily skewed the results of the Carbon Dating.

Where is the evidence that it was not in perportion to the body?

Of course it is going to show up as flat.

For cripes sake...

Just read the da** article and give a good critique of it.

The article from the anthropologists, microbiologists, historians, and a forensic pathologist say otherwise.

[Theodore Kurita]

The reason I am responding with such anger at the moment is simple.

More and more evidence has been coming out of the woodword for the past 4 years from highly accredited scientists.

The media has actually been reporting info about the new evidence:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1085582.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-04-06-turin-usat_x.htm

http://www.oregonlive.com/entertainment/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/entertainment/1081338968131750.xml


And here is the other cloth I was talking about, The Sudarium of Ovideo, this cloth has been authenticated:

http://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm

[apoger]

Where is the evidence that it was not in perportion to the body?

Of course it is going to show up as flat.[

This all by itself shows that you aren't thinking clearly.
It's simplicity itself to test.

Get some paint, or ink, or grape jelly, or whatever works for you. Wipe it on your face. Get a towel. Press it onto your face. Pull it away. Note that the image is distorted.

The image on the shroud is not distorted. It's flat like a picture/painting.

Ask yourself how this is possible.

[Kopji]

I wouldn't equate these people to being the same as Creationists or IDers.


I would, there is no difference. These guys hanging onto belief in the shroud are wackos. Not "reputable" scientists except to maybe creationists...

They even believe there are imprints of first century coins on the eyes of the shroud and the text can be seen. (o) (http://www.pagliarino.com/sindone/shroud/intro2.htm)

Bad science. Warmed up with faith.
PBS climbing on the 'Pa$$ion of Chri$t' bandwagon. Should be ashamed.

[Marvel Frozen]

Basically the only argument I see in that article is that recent bacteria may have caused an erroneus C-14 dating. Modern bacteria on the shroud could cause the C-14 dating to show it as being slightly more recent than it really is, but not by 1300 years. In order for the the dating to be off that far, the material that was dated would have to have been 2/3 bacteria, and only 1/3 actual cloth from the shroud! It's completely absurd to think the C-14 dating could be off by that much.

As others have also mentioned in this thread, the image itself shows clear signs of being a painting: The face is not distorted the way the should be. The image on back is taller than the image on the front. One hand is longer than the other (I don't recall which one). The person in the shroud image is also 6 feet tall, which would have been considered a giant around 0 A.D., not to mention that the image appears to look just like the standard artistic images of Jesus, which we know are not really what Jesus looks like.

As far as DNA from both cloths matching, that's a ridiculous claim. When researchers looked for blood on the shroud they didn't find any. How could they test the DNA if there wasn't even any blood found? What was found, though, was material that was used in red dyes around the 14th century.

I honestly don't see how anyone could consider the Shroud of Turin to be the real burial cloth of Jesus.

[Filippo Lippi]

I seem to remember a Horizon programme on the BBC that concluded that if the Shroud was authentic the Jesus was eight feet tall (as well as all the other bits about image distortion when wrapping). Obviously, don't know much more than a vague memory.

Anyway, the point I really wanted to make is a flippant one, as usual. Used to work in an office with a Scottish guy called Bill, who had the dryest sense of humour ever. There was this other guy called Alan, very tall and thin with a permed mullet that he would stroke when nervous. Alan was walking around the office one day when Bill taps me on the shoulder and whispers conspiratorially, "you see Alan, he looks like the image on the Turin Shroud." Man how we laughed, it was one of those laughs that is so intense that you can't tell other people why you're laughing. No more work done that day.

[Iacchus]

And if science could prove this was the actual burial cloth of someone who died at the time of Christ, what difference would it make? How could they even prove who it belonged to? I don't see how they could, not in this case, because there's too much riding in the balance.

Besides, we already have evidence that Jesus existed, and it's well documented. Where? In the Bible, through His Word. Isn't this what all the hubbub is about anyway, what this man spoke about 2,000 years ago? And if what He spoke was true, and these words were faithfully transcribed, then one should be able to read them and understand what it was all about. Which to many, is exactly what it entails. ;)

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

And here is the other cloth I was talking about, The Sudarium of Ovideo, this cloth has been authenticated:


For starters you should check on the relatively recent thread about "the historical Jesus". The short version: there is no proper evidence of any such guy.

So the idea that any rag can be "authenticated" at all is therefore silly. There has to be evidence for a historical Jesus before you can reasonably claim that there is evidence a cloth came in contact with the guy.

For seconds, the evidence is pretty damn weak. Woohoo, the cloth came from Palestine! That's not exactly impossible to replicate. You just make your forgery out of a piece of cloth from Palestine. Done. Elementary fakery in fact, very much like the way art forgers use old canvas. A faker would do this even though pollen analysis was unknown at the time.

As someone else pointed out, there's no evidence of actual blood on the Shroud of Turin that I'm aware of. So anyone who claims that Shroud blood has been typed as AB is either aware of big news about the Shroud that I am not, or is a liar. I lean towards the second idea at the moment, but feel free to point me to where sensible scientists have said the Shroud has AB blood on it... that dates from the 1st century, of course.

If the two rags were real, I'd also want to know how much blood Jesus managed to squirt out of his face. It seems the guy was leaking like a hose, what with all the blood on the face wrapping and then loads more blood on the shroud. I guess Jesus had miraculous anti-gravity blood that settled up into the top of the shroud rather than down into the bottom. That or they entombed him face-down.

[Agammamon]

Given that the Church itself declared it a fake shortly after it appeared, I would think that the issue would be closed. Unfortunately the Holy See's left hand isn't talking to the right hand.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Besides, we already have evidence that Jesus existed, and it's well documented. Where? In the Bible, through His Word.


:D That's funny!

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

The place where the Carbon Dating sample was taken was the MOST HANDLED CORNER OF THE SHROUD.

There were massive amounts of bacteria on that corner that could have easily skewed the results of the Carbon Dating.



In order for a 2000 year old sample to appear to be 700 years old, it would need to contain almost 2/3 of modern sample. IOW, for every gram of 2000 year old sample, it would need 1.7 g of modern contaminant.

That's a lot of bacteria. Contrary to your claim that it could have "easily skewed the results," it is more the case that the amount of contamination needed to get the results that were observed would be very hard to miss.

It's a non-issue.

[Ladewig]

Where is the evidence that it was not in perportion to the body?

Of course it is going to show up as flat.[
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following quotes in blue are from articles that Joe Nickell wrote in the late 1980's.

"The hair is indicative of a person standing rather than lying down. As the prevailing view of believers is that Jesus did not rise until three days after his death, the hair should be matted, and any blood from anywhere on the body should have either been dry or soaked into the the sheet. "

There were massive amounts of bacteria on that corner that could have easily skewed the results of the Carbon Dating.

"DATING. The assertion that blood and pollen matching prove the Shroud of Turin dates to at least the eighth century is - based on the evidence - absurd. The shroud cloth was radiocarbon dated to circa 1260-1390 by three separate laboratories. The date is consistent with a fourteenth-century bishop's report to Pope Clement VII that an earlier bishop had discovered the forger and that he had confessed."

A bit about the bishop. There is no record of the shroud before the 14th century. In fact the earliest known written reference to the Shroud is a letter from a bishop to Pope Clement VII from 1389. The letter explains that the cloth had been created as part of a faith-healing scheme, "the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it."


They took samples from both this burial cloth, and the Shroud of Turin.

The DNA matched both clothes.

I am surprised by the claim that current technology allows for 2000-year-old dried blood to be DNA matched.

" Samples of what was claimed to be blood failed a battery of tests in 1973.
In the late 1970s, forensic microanalyst Walter McCrone, an expert in
examining the authenticity of documents and paintings, identified the "blood"
of the shroud as red ocher and vermilion tempera paint, and concluded that
the entire image was painted."

"BLOOD. The Associated Press reported claims that the shroud bears type AB blood stains. Perhaps this erroneous information has its origin in other fake shrouds of Jesus, since the Shroud of Turin's stains are not only suspiciously red (unlike genuine blood that blackens with age) but they failed batteries of tests by internationally known forensic experts. The 'blood' has been definitively proved to be composed of red ocher and vermilion tempera paint."


I suppose that the issue of blood typing could be concluded if the church in Turin allowed any scientist to test it, but they have not allowed any testing or examination of the Shroud since the 1980's.


Another question
Why did a vivid 14th-century image fade radically over the next five or six centuries when it had supposedly remained bright and clear until its 14th-century "discovery"?hh

[Ladewig]

A good example of the facial distortion appears here (http://www.greatdreams.com/shroud_of_turin.htm). The drawing is copywrited so I won't post it here.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Ladewig
A good example of the facial distortion appears here (http://www.greatdreams.com/shroud_of_turin.htm). The drawing is copywrited so I won't post it here.

I read one of the first essay's on that site, and there is a problem. The author claims, in support of the criticism that the radiocarbon dates are wrong due to contamination, that a mummy of some sort had contamination that lead to a 550 year error, and given that the shroud contamination layer is thicker, it could account for the 1300 year error.

Unfortunately, it's not quite that easy, because of exponential decay. One might think that you would only need 2.5 times as much contamination to get a 2.5 times the error, but that isn't the way it works. Note that it has been noted above that one needs 1.7 g of contaminant for every gram of real sample to get an apparent date of 1300. OTOH, to get a 500 year error on a 2000 year old sample, one only needs about .3 g of contamination per gram of sample. Thus, the shroud would need 5 times as much contamination as the mummified sample, and that is assuming the mummified sample is only 2000 years old (if it is 3000 years old, you would only need .175 g of contamination/gram of material to make it look 500 years younger).

Lastly, there is something I don't get. Assuming that the dating labs are measuring the age of the shroud fibers, why wouldn't they just rinse the thing with some acetone or ethanol to get rid of organic dirt? Cellulose does not dissolve in these fibers so they could make themselves a nice clean sample of shroud cellulose that could be dated.

[Virgil]

Originally posted by Ladewig


]
"BLOOD. The Associated Press reported claims that the shroud bears type AB blood stains. Perhaps this erroneous information has its origin in other fake shrouds of Jesus, since the Shroud of Turin's stains are not only suspiciously red (unlike genuine blood that blackens with age) but they failed batteries of tests by internationally known forensic experts. The 'blood' has been definitively proved to be composed of red ocher and vermilion tempera paint."[/COLOR]





this proves my theory that Jesus was the son of god and his species uses a mixture of red ocher and tempra as their blood.


Virgil

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Ladewig
I am surprised by the claim that current technology allows for 2000-year-old dried blood to be DNA matched.
If they really could find blood to analyze, it would solve yet another question about the divinity of Jesus.

If Jesus is the son of God, then he should be haploid (having an unpaired set of chromasomes) because God, being an incorporal entity, would not have donated any. If he were a clone of Mary, he would be female. At the very least, he would have DNA unlike any other person in history. If not, then he is simply not the son of God, but just a plain old human with a human mother and human father.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tricky

If they really could find blood to analyze, it would solve yet another question about the divinity of Jesus.

If Jesus is the son of God, then he should be haploid (having an unpaired set of chromasomes) because God, being an incorporal entity, would not have donated any. If he were a clone of Mary, he would be female. At the very least, he would have DNA unlike any other person in history. If not, then he is simply not the son of God, but just a plain old human with a human mother and human father.

Like a omnipotent God couldn't just make up the DNA he wanted, perhaps using Mary's except for the chromosones that are related to gender and just making them up as he went along. He could go so far as to give the kid what he thought was "perfect" DNA (mine). God invented DNA, so he can do whatever he pleased as far as that goes.

On a more serious note...

There would seem to be a massive chain of custody problem in using DNA on any of these artifacts.

[Chanileslie]

Carbon dating - my understanding, and it has been many years since I have looked at this indepth, is that it takes into account the fact that other material with carbon may have been introduced to the sample. There is an error range given also for any dated article.

After reading the article, I would have to say that the microbiologists hypothesis is sound, but even he admits that he needs to do more testing before he can come upon an answer. There are also problems that his theory do not cover such as the fact that the cloth does not contain the distortions that should be existent in a cloth that wrapped a body, or even for that matter, if there were two cloths, one for the face and one for the body, how did the image make it through two cloths? If there were two cloths that wrapped the body, it would tend to discount the microbiologists hypothesis because although the fatty acids and bacteria would have imprinted one cloth, it would not have imprinted a second cloth layed over it, IMO.

Also, a more important point than whether the Shroud of Turin or anything else of that nature is real is did Jesus exist? Well, even if the shroud proved to be a genuine artifact, there is no proof that this was the shroud that wrapped Jesus. I always feel from listening to believers rapture over things like this that they think if they could only prove it to us skeptics then we would believe, but proving something to be authentic does not eliminate a thousand other questions: such as did this person exist when there is no evidence to show that he did? How do we know that this particular cloth covered that particular person? It was not uncommon to wrap the dead in shrouds, so it is plausible that if it were authentic, it could have been the covering of some other person.

Also, don't discount the cunning of Meidieval artisans, they were very clever at their work, and if a piece was done very well, it could serve to fool a lot of very knowledgable people.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And if science could prove this was the actual burial cloth of someone who died at the time of Christ, what difference would it make? How could they even prove who it belonged to? I don't see how they could, not in this case, because there's too much riding in the balance.

You started out so promising, but.......

Originally posted by Iacchus
Besides, we already have evidence that Jesus existed, and it's well documented. Where? In the Bible, through His Word. Isn't this what all the hubbub is about anyway, what this man spoke about 2,000 years ago? And if what He spoke was true, and these words were faithfully transcribed, then one should be able to read them and understand what it was all about. Which to many, is exactly what it entails. ;)

[shakes head]

[Rosencrantz]

How come no one thought to compare the blood on the shroud with the blood produced during Communion and the miracle of transubstantiation? Talk about a missed opportunity!

Still, it's not too late. Somebody do a blood typing on the wine! If it comes out type AB, we at least know Jesus's blood type and can compare it to the blood on the Sudarium or the shroud.

[Bikewer]

A nice updated article on the Shroud at Skeptic's Dictionary.

http://skepdic.com/shroud.html

[the_ignored]

Heh! Time to get the "other side (http://www.rr-bb.com/showpost.php?p=1634958&postcount=9)" perspective on this....

Muahahah!

Happily, though, even these people (http://www.rr-bb.com/showpost.php?p=1635098&postcount=13) are half-assed skeptical about this one!

I don't understand how the face cloth can be Christ's as the blood type is supposedly AB. It is my understanding that you can only get AB when each parent contributres one of each. In other words, if you are AB then you can only pass on A OR B to your child, not both. So the only way that the face cloth can be Christ's AND AB blood would be for Jesus to not have been born from a single parent. WE DON'T EVEN GO THERE!!!!!
Therefore, I believe the face cloth is fake.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by Agammamon
Given that the Church itself declared it a fake shortly after it appeared, I would think that the issue would be closed. Unfortunately the Holy See's left hand isn't talking to the right hand.

Good Point.

I took a look at the Horizon and CSICOP stuff on this.

God Fu**ing Da**!

Why The F*** does PBS show such Bullsh**, especially for a series that has done some decent Antrhopological work in the past?


I swear to God that PBS has been starting to go down the crapper ever since they showed Andrew Weil and his herbal medicine quackery.

That, and the one newage crackpot they were showing continuosly for a week..

GAAAHHH!!!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by triadboy

:D That's funny! Like I said, what's the big hubbub about if it wasn't for what He said? The whole point is to teach us about the kingdom of heaven, right? And if we find it then there must be something to it then.

[jimmygun]

Take a real good look at the person in the shroud...It's Hulk Hogan! Could anything be more plain? Duh!

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Like I said, what's the big hubbub about if it wasn't for what He said? The whole point is to teach us about the kingdom of heaven, right? And if we find it then there must be something to it then.


O.K., tell me something about the kingdom of heaven.. Just a little ( anything ) of the stuff you have learned..

[mummymonkey]

Must have been cosy in that tomb.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3621931.stm

[elliotfc]

Interesting article that just came out:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_medical/story.jsp?story=510996

This is not recent, but for those interested in the C-14 debate:
http://www.shroud.com/c14debat.htm

Two additional points:

-Only one "artifact" exists that has the wounds in the wrists. That artifact is the Shroud. No other painting, sculpture, anything has wounds in the wrists. If the Shroud is a medieval "forgery", it is one of the most extraordinary anomalies in existence, for the forger would have made a bad forgery, a forgery with nail wounds in places (the wrists) which would have gone against all other crucifixion depictions.

-The Shroud has never been replicated satisfactorily.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Regardless of whether it dated back to the 1 Century AD, the shroud is a fake.

When you wrap cloth to take an impression, your image is horizontally distorted and stretched. There is no distortion on the shroud, that, and the fact the image is in fact of a European Jesus, is reason enough to suggest it isnt authentic.

You're assuming the image would be an impression.

What makes you think it is a European Jesus?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

>>>One would think an article of cloth so important would be trumpeted in song and writings starting the day ofter the Christ "rose". But nothing is written until 1350. Weird.<<<

http://www.shroudstory.com/early.htm

http://www.shroudstory.com/topic-earlytable.htm

I don't think the shroud is all that important except in that it is a curious artifact, and perhaps this viewpoint would have been the viewpoint of people hundreds of years ago as well.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

>>>The carbon dating puts it around 1350 C.E.<<<

Even Gove (co-founder of carbor dating who is not a "believer") has said that the carbon dating tests should be thrown out for various reasons.

Look, I hardly expect anybody to accept the Shroud because of any circumstantial evidence. I am amused that people put so much faith and emotion behind faulty carbon dating results, but people believe wholeheartedly what they want to believe.

-Elliot

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by elliotfc
>>>The carbon dating puts it around 1350 C.E.<<<

Even Gove (co-founder of carbor dating who is not a "believer") has said that the carbon dating tests should be thrown out for various reasons.

Look, I hardly expect anybody to accept the Shroud because of any circumstantial evidence. I am amused that people put so much faith and emotion behind faulty carbon dating results, but people believe wholeheartedly what they want to believe.

-Elliot Are you amused that believers have faith that the dating is faulty, or at the people who have faith in tests that have been demonstrated to be faulty?

Do you have any reason to believe the shroud is genuine? ( .. and I don't mean a ' genuine shroud ' ... )

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Yahweh
There is no distortion on the shroud, that, and the fact the image is in fact of a European Jesus, is reason enough to suggest it isnt authentic. I agree the Shroud seems fake enough, but what makes you think it's a representation of a European Jesus?

In another thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37519) about Jesus' likely appearance, I suggested that the next best thing to a detailed portrait of Jesus drawn by one of his contemporaries (which, if any existed, would obviously be better than modern forensic reconstructions) might be well-preserved images of Jesus in early Coptic or other Middle Eastern art. As an example, I posted the following image, which is one of the best early surviving examples, painted around 590 AD at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Egypt (not far from what is now Israel). It shows what 6th-century Semitic men apparently found to be at least a plausible image of a 1st-century Semitic man originating from a nearby region:


http://www.rollins.edu/Foreign_Lang/Russian/sinsav.jpg



MLynn immediately pointed out how similar this face appears to that on the Shroud of Turin:


http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/shroud.gif


Accordingly, I don't think it's at all obvious that the Shroud depicts a European man; it seems perfectly consistent with a non-European Jesus.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Are you amused that believers have faith that the dating is faulty, or at the people who have faith in tests that have been demonstrated to be faulty?

Everything amuses me these days.

Look, all you can do is check out the links I provided. If you want to believe in shoddy tests, that's your deal, and I'll be amused by that.

One more link, it is very clear about the C-14 stuff:
http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-carbon-14.htm

Do you have any reason to believe the shroud is genuine? ( .. and I don't mean a ' genuine shroud ' ... )

There are reasons to believe that the shroud came from the Jerusalem region, that it is older than 1350, etc etc etc.

Like I said earlier (I think I said it earlier), my main interest in the Shroud has to do with the inexplicable anomaly of the nail wounds being in the wrists and not the palms. Does that make it genuine? All I know for sure is that it is an anomalous artifact of the highest order. My Christian faith does not depend on the Shroud. I'm not tied to any statement of faith/belief regarding the Shroud, and if it could ever be *proved* one way or another, it wouldn't affect my faith/belief either way.

-Elliot

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by elliotfc


Everything amuses me these days.

All I know for sure is that it is an anomalous artifact of the highest order.

-Elliot

I'm curious what you mean by this... You could be talking about a ' Big Foot ' footprint..


I don't suppose you find it amusing, in light of all the tangible realities we are able to deal with everyday, that so many ( not you, I'm sure ...) struggle to find a tangible link to the suppossed human incarnation of the creator of the Universe ?

[Graham]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I agree the Shroud seems fake enough, but what makes you think it's a representation of a European Jesus?

In another thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37519) about Jesus' likely appearance, I suggested that the next best thing to a detailed portrait of Jesus drawn by one of his contemporaries (which, if any existed, would obviously be better than modern forensic reconstructions) might be well-preserved images of Jesus in early Coptic or other Middle Eastern art. As an example, I posted the following image, which is one of the best early surviving examples, painted around 590 AD at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Egypt (not far from what is now Israel). It shows what 6th-century Semitic men apparently found to be at least a plausible image of a 1st-century Semitic man originating from a nearby region:

MLynn immediately pointed out how similar this face appears to that on the Shroud of Turin:

Accordingly, I don't think it's at all obvious that the Shroud depicts a European man; it seems perfectly consistent with a non-European Jesus.

OTOH, the picture is quite stylised and clearly part of a well-defined artistic tradition, which might include a particular way of depicting Jesus.

600 years is plenty of time for such a tradition to develop, I would think.

Graham

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Diogenes


I'm curious what you mean by this... You could be talking about a ' Big Foot ' footprint..

Diogenes, how can I be anymore clear?

Again, I said that only ONE artifact has nail wounds in the wrists as opposed to the palms. Let me say that again. Only ONE artifact has nail wounds in the wrists as opposed to the palms. Let me say that one more time. Only ONE artifact has nail wounds in the wrists as opposed to the palms.

How many Big Foot footprints are in existence? How many plasters? How many photographs? Multiplicity. I was talking about a unique artifcat. Do you see the difference?

I don't suppose you find it amusing, in light of all the tangible realities we are able to deal with everyday, that so many ( not you, I'm sure ...) struggle to find a tangible link to the suppossed human incarnation of the creator of the Universe ?

No, I don't find the struggle amusing. Humans have to believe things, and the struggle to choose what things to believe is something all humans with fully formed brains have to go through. The ways in which such beliefs are expressed, or, the ways in which alternative beliefs are handled are a worthy source of never ending amusement. If you can't laugh at such stuff, the constant indignation will drive you to drink, not that there is anything wrong with drinking.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Graham


OTOH, the picture is quite stylised and clearly part of a well-defined artistic tradition, which might include a particular way of depicting Jesus.

600 years is plenty of time for such a tradition to develop, I would think.

Graham

Are you saying that in 600 years, some "Europeans" infiltrated the region and taught the artisans to develop a tradition in which the Jesus subject would look European and not semitic?

-Elliot

[Graham]

Originally posted by elliotfc


Are you saying that in 600 years, some "Europeans" infiltrated the region and taught the artisans to develop a tradition in which the Jesus subject would look European and not semitic?

-Elliot

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't Christianity have come to Egypt via Rome and the less-than-semitic-looking Romans?

The monastery that CEO_Esq refers to, for instance, was constructed on the order of the Emperor Justinian and was heavily fortified, suggesting to me a certain degree of seperation from the local community.

Graham

[Graham]

I should have included this interesting link (http://www.touregypt.net/Catherines.htm) in my last post, sorry.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Graham


Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't Christianity have come to Egypt via Rome and the less-than-semitic-looking Romans?

The monastery that CEO_Esq refers to, for instance, was constructed on the order of the Emperor Justinian and was heavily fortified, suggesting to me a certain degree of seperation from the local community.

Graham

There are a plethora of examples of Roman art regarding Jesus! Coins, paintings, tomb engravings, etc. The Roman Jesus looked like an Apollo-ish Greek god, huge eyes, short curly hair, no facial hair. If you're right, I'd think that the Roman-influenced Jesus face would look like the actual artifacts we possess of Roman-influenced Jesus faces.

-Elliot

[Graham]

Actually, if you follow through to this page (http://www.touregypt.net/sc07b.htm) on the above link, they describe CEO's picture as:

A rare 7th Century icon showing
Jesus Pantocrator in Byzantine
style using a wax-melting technique

(My bolding) The Byzantines also were less-than-semitic.

Take a look at this Byzantine picture of Saint Boris:
http://www.sanford-artedventures.com/study/images/byzantine_art_l.jpg

Funny, that guy looks a lot like Jesus!

Graham

[triadboy]

Originally posted by elliotfc
There are a plethora of examples of Roman art regarding Jesus! Coins, paintings, tomb engravings, etc. The Roman Jesus looked like an Apollo-ish Greek god, huge eyes, short curly hair, no facial hair.

I'll bet many of those are of Dionysus.

[Graham]

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ikon/cp-hsof2.gif

"Zoe and Constantine IX" or "I'm Jesus and so's my wife!"

:p

[headscratcher4]

Accordingly, I don't think it's at all obvious that the Shroud depicts a European man; it seems perfectly consistent with a non-European Jesus.

The artistic tradition that created the Christ Pantocrator dipicted above was a Byzantine/Greek tradition heavilly influenced by the pretence that the Byzantine Empire was a "Roman" empire and the successor state of the pagan Roman Empire. The point you make has some merit, IMO, but this is a "western" (and ergo a "European") artistic tradtion. If you want to see diferentiation, look at dipictions of Christ in Etheopian Orthodox churches which often dipict biblical personages as African/Etheopians.

I Think the broader point is that the Shroud is clearly in the chain of depictions of Jesus that emerged out of the medivil period and heavilly influenced by Byzantine art. Early dipictions of Jesus -- from the first century for example -- often show a beardless shepard (also, possibly, an idealized portrait rather than an actual dipiction). In any event, there is little reason to view the Christ Pantocrator -- even one created in the 6th century -- as anything more than a stylized artistic ideal and not an actual image of an actual man. In this respect, that the image on the Shroud would look like the image in an Egyptian monestary is completely consistent and to be expected. IMO.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Graham
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ikon/cp-hsof2.gif

"Zoe and Constantine IX" or "I'm Jesus and so's my wife!"

:p

I have always loved this mosaic. If you've ever seen it in the Aya Sophia in Istanbul, you'll see that the Head of Constintine has been placed in the space once occupied by the images of Zoe's previous two husbands -- it is an Byzantine version of the old Stalinist technique of erasing the politically undesirable from the public iconography.

[elliotfc]

Are there extant paintings/sculptures from the time of Jesus of Jews of his day?

-Elliot

[Graham]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


I have always loved this mosaic. If you've ever seen it in the Aya Sophia in Istanbul, you'll see that the Head of Constintine has been placed in the space once occupied by the images of Zoe's previous two husbands -- it is an Byzantine version of the old Stalinist technique of erasing the politically undesirable from the public iconography.

One day I will visit Istanbul, I have promised myself. In the meantime I make do with the internet and the History Channel.

I understand, however, that this sort of transplant was relatively commonplace. I remember seeing an example in a Byzantine mosaic that had been transported to Venice. IIRC, they had replaced Jesus's head with that of the doge!

Graham

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Graham


One day I will visit Istanbul, I have promised myself. In the meantime I make do with the internet and the History Channel.

I understand, however, that this sort of transplant was relatively commonplace. I remember seeing an example in a Byzantine mosaic that had been transported to Venice. IIRC, they had replaced Jesus's head with that of the doge!

Graham

I think replacing Jesus' head with a Doge would have been unusual, but there was a lot of changing the faces of Emperors in Mosaics...especially as the dipiction was idealized more than of a specific individual.

I wouldn't put it past the Venitians, however, when they looted the City in 1204 they pretty much walked off with anything not nailed down (and much that was...like the four bronze horses now at St. Marks Cathedral). It probably wasn't much of a leap for some of the Midevil doges to think of themselves as godlike.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Are there extant paintings/sculptures from the time of Jesus of Jews of his day?

-Elliot

Great question. I don't know the answer. However, my recollection of the dipiction of the Jewish prisioners carved into the Arch of Titus at the end of the 1St Century (apx 80 AD) dipicts the prisoners as beardless ...

http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/titus/titus.html

And, somewhere in the Passion controversy, I remember reading that some expert was complaining because Gibson had all of his Jews and Christ as bearded and long-haired, while he contended that it was more likely that not only would Jesus look more like a modern Arab, but that he would likely have been beardless and short-haried (though I can't remember the reasons he suggested that...).

[Graham]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Are there extant paintings/sculptures from the time of Jesus of Jews of his day?

-Elliot


I honestly don't know. I can't find anything immediately with Google but that of course proves nothing.

Graham

[Tricky]

Back to questions about the shroud, I was wondering why, if the shroud is authentic, are there not other examples of this kind of preservation floating about? After all, there are lots of mummies. Burial in shrouds was common. We ought to be seeing many similar "body prints" on exhumed shrouds, but I've never heard of a single one.

If one wants to pursue the "God made this one special to give us a sign" argument, then one would have to ask why God didn't make the sign more irrefutable.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Tricky
Back to questions about the shroud, I was wondering why, if the shroud is authentic, are there not other examples of this kind of preservation floating about? After all, there are lots of mummies. Burial in shrouds was common. We ought to be seeing many similar "body prints" on exhumed shrouds, but I've never heard of a single one.


Does it seem strange to anyone else that there should be an image on a burial cloth in the first place? Heck, according the bible it was claimed that Joseph wrapped him the cloth. If he was "wrapped" in the cloth, why does it look intead like he was laid on it first and then it was carefully laid over top of him, with no smearing or anything (if you believe some people, you can see details of coins in the eyes). How in the heck do you do that with a cover that wraps a person up?

If this cloth was wrapped around a bloody dead man, it should have blood smeared all over the place, not some pristine image that has painting-like resolution. There was no way a bloody dead man was "wrapped" in this thing.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Tricky
Back to questions about the shroud, I was wondering why, if the shroud is authentic, are there not other examples of this kind of preservation floating about? After all, there are lots of mummies. Burial in shrouds was common. We ought to be seeing many similar "body prints" on exhumed shrouds, but I've never heard of a single one.

Hey Tricky.

People are missing something here. If it is authentic, perhaps it is MORE than just a flesh on cloth impression. I think that's the whole point here. Jesus *resurrected*, and one after shock of this resurrection would be the Shroud image.

From this perspective Tricky, you're actually making the Shroud a greater anomaly or mystery, maybe even verifying the Christian claim. Christians claim that Jesus was the unique incarnation, and the unique resurrected incarnation left behind a unique Shroud. It fits from the theological perspective.

The believer in the Shroud (who I am at the very least sympathetic towards) does not believe that the Shroud is a flesh on cloth impression, but something much more than that.

If one wants to pursue the "God made this one special to give us a sign" argument, then one would have to ask why God didn't make the sign more irrefutable.

Right. I tend to think it was just a necessary after-effect of the resurrection, if the Shroud is in fact legit. Why should the Shroud be greater than the fact of the resurrection?

The primacy of the theological concepts I think. The idea that God would actually become a human being and die for our sin has to be greater than any physical residue. I think. Again, I'm not a materialist, and no pure materialist could possibly be a Christian believer.

-Elliot

[Virgil]

I agree, it would be a big smear of blood and tissue bits.

Also, were are the residue from the burrial spices. IMO they would have left a gummy residue down into the fibers.



Virgil

[Graham]

Originally posted by Tricky
Back to questions about the shroud, I was wondering why, if the shroud is authentic, are there not other examples of this kind of preservation floating about? After all, there are lots of mummies. Burial in shrouds was common. We ought to be seeing many similar "body prints" on exhumed shrouds, but I've never heard of a single one.

If one wants to pursue the "God made this one special to give us a sign" argument, then one would have to ask why God didn't make the sign more irrefutable.

It seems logical to me (once you accept massively unlikely assumption that underlys it) that the answer to this question is that whilst there may have been many other burials in shrouds, there was only this one instance of God's son being buried in a shroud.

If you accept Jesus he was God's son and not just some regular Joe, you accept that his death was not the death of a normal man and thus, possibly, the shroud.

Not so much a sign from God as a sign of God's (son's) passing.

Graham

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Graham
The Byzantines also were less-than-semitic.

Take a look at this Byzantine picture of Saint Boris:
http://www.sanford-artedventures.com/study/images/byzantine_art_l.jpg

Funny, that guy looks a lot like Jesus!
I'm not sure what you mean by less-than-Semitic... OK, strictly speaking, Semitic refers to a linguistic group rather than an ethnic group, but let's leave that aside for the moment. I don't think Byzantine is an ethnic designation either, now that I think of it, but certainly natives of the Byzantine empire came from Greek, Slavic, and many other backgrounds. In many cases I daresay you'd have difficulty distinguishing, say, two paintings by the same artist depicting, respectively, a "Byzantine" and a "Semite".

As for our friend Boris (no Aryan he - IIRC he was an Eastern Slav), as far as that painting permits one to conclude (and assuming he actually looked like that picture), Boris really does fall well within what I'd consider to be the normal variations of "Semitic" physiognomy. All of which serves to return us to my main point, which was: on what physical basis does Yahweh so readily distinguish the Shroud subject as being of non-Semitic extraction? No answer on that one yet.

Originally posted by headscratcher4
The artistic tradition that created the Christ Pantocrator dipicted above was a Byzantine/Greek tradition heavilly influenced by the pretence that the Byzantine Empire was a "Roman" empire and the successor state of the pagan Roman Empire. The point you make has some merit, IMO, but this is a "western" (and ergo a "European") artistic tradtion. If you want to see diferentiation, look at dipictions of Christ in Etheopian Orthodox churches which often dipict biblical personages as African/Etheopians.Wait a second. Let's bear in mind that the absorption of strong local influences from Semitic and Persian cultures is precisely what most distinguishes the Byzantine artistic tradition from, say, classical Hellenistic art! In other words, although I suppose one could argue that it's in some sense Western (although most people consider Byzantine art as bridging the gap between Western and Middle Eastern art), what makes Byzantine art unique from a Western perspective is its non-Western origins. And frankly, I think part of my point about that icon has been overlooked. Regardless of what tradition it was created in, I think it's very difficult to conclude that the man depicted is necessarily not Semitic. As with the image of St. Boris, the Christ Pantocrator falls well within what I'd consider to be the normal range of Semitic physiognomy, which considering the strong Semitic strain within Byzantine art, is fairly unsurprising.

Originally posted by headscratcher4
In any event, there is little reason to view the Christ Pantocrator -- even one created in the 6th century -- as anything more than a stylized artistic ideal and not an actual image of an actual man.I don't assert the contrary. I'd even accept for the sake of argument (although it wouldn't surprise me if art historians disagreed there, given what appears to be its unusual level of detail and realism, which is part of why the image is considered a masterpiece). The point remains that this stylized artistic ideal nonetheless has a relatively high degree of verisimilitude in the context of human portraiture - it looks like a man, and I don't see any reason to think it doesn't look like some man who might have lived and died in 1st-century Palestine, though obviously any similarity to Jesus' actual face (if, indeed, he existed) would be fortuitous. In sum, what so obviously rules out Christ Pantocrator (or for that matter, the Shroud figure) as a passable representation of a non-European?

[Graham]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
In sum, what so obviously rules out Christ Pantocrator (or for that matter, the Shroud figure) as a passable representation of a non-European?

For my part, I would say nothing. However, I would also say that we have amply demonstrated a passing resemlblence in the shroud to a piece of art from 6th century Egypt is not necessarily meaningful either.

Graham

In terms of making the case for the shroud being "real" or not, I mean

[Tricky]

Originally posted by elliotfc
The primacy of the theological concepts I think. The idea that God would actually become a human being and die for our sin has to be greater than any physical residue.
True, but then why bring up physical stuff at all? Why do you need a "shocked shroud" for evidence if all the evidence you will ever need is in the Bible.

The reason shroud is brought forth as physical evidence is to convince unbelievers, among whom are materialists. But it cannot convince unbelievers if it is not good evidence. It's convincing to you if you already believe that "God would actually become a human being and die for our sin...", but that is literally preaching to the choir.

As a side note to your comments, do you think God actually died? Maybe a part of him? Have you ever considered the ramifications of having God dead (or "mostly dead") for three days?

(It reminds me of something someone said here. "Jesus paid the ultimate price for our sins: He died for the weekend." ;) )


Originally posted by elliotfc
I think. Again, I'm not a materialist, and no pure materialist could possibly be a Christian believer.

I'm not sure what a "pure" materialist is, but yes, if one believes that the only thing that can be shown to exist is the material universe, then that sort of leaves out God. However, they might believe that there was a (material) Christ who taught great philosophy, told great, metaphorical stories, and preached some great words to live by.

[Graham]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

I'm not sure what you mean by less-than-Semitic...

Just to add they I had understood the term to refer to people of middle-eastern descent.

I also understood that the Byzantines were descendents of the Romans.

I may be wrong in both assumptions, it would appear.

:(

Graham

[Ipecac]

Just out of curiousity, for those who have seen the Jesus Snuff film, does the Shroud make an appearance?

[Ladewig]

There are reasons to believe that the shroud came from the Jerusalem region, that it is older than 1350, etc etc etc.

And there are reasons to believe that the shroud did not come from Jerusalem, is not older than 1350, does not contain blood, does not represent a supine corpse, etc. etc. etc.

The reasons available for discounting the authenticity of the Shroud outweigh for me the reasons for believing in the authenticity. Of course, the whole purpose of the JREF board is to evaluate evidence. I find the evidence wanting.


==============================
Aside:
I find it somewhat surreal that the Jesus in the Turkish mosaic is flashing a gang sign. reference (http://www.velocity.net/~acekc/gangsign.htm)

[Bikewer]

In the Skeptic's Dictionary article I cited, researchers who have examined the shroud in detail unequivically define the various stains as paint.
The provenance of the various "contaminants", including pollen from the region of Jerusalem, is highly suspect.

The fact that there was a brisk trade in such pious frauds in the time period indicated by the carbon-dating seems to drive the nail into the coffin, so to speak.

[KS_SKEPTIC]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I understand it may have been an elaborate hoax, pulled off by Leonardo Da Vinci, just to spite the Catholic Church.


Take a look at this!:)

Leonardo Da Vinci (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/shroud.html)

[RichardR]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Lastly, there is something I don't get. Assuming that the dating labs are measuring the age of the shroud fibers, why wouldn't they just rinse the thing with some acetone or ethanol to get rid of organic dirt? Cellulose does not dissolve in these fibers so they could make themselves a nice clean sample of shroud cellulose that could be dated. But you would have to assume that the labs doing the testing knew what they were doing, ie that they were experts in carbon dating.

Oh wait a minute, they were. :D

[RichardR]

Originally posted by elliotfc
>>>The carbon dating puts it around 1350 C.E.<<<

Even Gove (co-founder of carbor dating who is not a "believer") has said that the carbon dating tests should be thrown out for various reasons.

Look, I hardly expect anybody to accept the Shroud because of any circumstantial evidence. I am amused that people put so much faith and emotion behind faulty carbon dating results, but people believe wholeheartedly what they want to believe.Not just the carbon dating. There is the fact that it was known to be a fake in the 14th century, according to a bishop's report to Pope Clement VII, dated 1389. Also that whole thing about the "blood" on the shroud really being red ochre and vermillion is pretty damming to the "not a fake" hypothesis. Still, if you're happy Jesus had red paint flowing through his veins, who am I to burst your bubble?

[CFLarsen]

Oops....

Turin Shroud 'shows second face' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3621931.stm)

A second ghostly image of a man's face has been discovered on the back of the linen, according to a report published by London's Institute of Physics.
(Emphasis mine)

Explain to me how the face got on the back of the linen.

If a face can appear on the back of the linen (obviously a fake), why can't the face on the front of the linen be a fake?

[Tanja]

Actually when I look at the second face (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3621931.stm) I just see a blur, it looks to me like a "face in a cloud" phenomenon.

Does anyone see the "second face" in the photograph?

[Graham]

Originally posted by Tanja
Actually when I look at the second face (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3621931.stm) I just see a blur, it looks to me like a "face in a cloud" phenomenon.

Does anyone see the "second face" in the photograph?

I can definitely see patterns in the "second face" that correspond with features in the "first face".

For instance, the two light patches of "nose" are present in both, similarly the arc of the hair at the top.

Graham

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Oops....

Turin Shroud 'shows second face' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3621931.stm)


(Emphasis mine)

Explain to me how the face got on the back of the linen.

If a face can appear on the back of the linen (obviously a fake), why can't the face on the front of the linen be a fake?

From the article:"It is extremely difficult to make a fake with these features." And the point is ?

Look at this article...

A Shroud of Doubt (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/75584.stm)

Last year a Swiss archaeologist who spent 16 years studying the shroud said new tests had proved its authenticity "beyond all reasonable doubt".
..............................She said new research in Paris had revealed the words "Jesus" and "Nazareth" written on the cloth shortly after the body was wrapped in it.



Whoa!! I'm convinced.. I'm waiting for the final report, revealing whether the writing was done with a ' Sharpie ' or an ' El Marko '....

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Diogenes

O.K., tell me something about the kingdom of heaven.. Just a little ( anything ) of the stuff you have learned.. The kingdom of heaven is within us. :)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/shroud.gif


Accordingly, I don't think it's at all obvious that the Shroud depicts a European man; it seems perfectly consistent with a non-European Jesus. Are you sure that's not Hulk Hogan? :D

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The kingdom of heaven is within us. :)

You said:
The whole point is to teach us about the kingdom of heaven, right?

Who/what taught you this? ( That the kingdom of heaven is within us.. )

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Diogenes

You said:

Who/what taught you this? ( That the kingdom of heaven is within us.. ) That's a long story. But such is the story of anyone's life ... ;)

Ultimately one teaches oneself if, in fact they know anything which, is what makes it so difficult to answer.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Iacchus
That's a long story. But such is the story of anyone's life ... ;)

Ultimately one teaches oneself if, in fact they know anything which, is what makes it so difficult to answer.

I really didn't expect anything of substance...

No suprises today... Oh, well..


I'm off to teach myself some nuclear physics...:)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Diogenes


I really didn't expect anything of substance...

No suprises today... Oh, well..

I'm off to teach myself some nuclear physics...:) Hey it's your life. You are what you realize. ;)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Ultimately one teaches oneself if, in fact they know anything which, is what makes it so difficult to answer.
More accurately, one allows oneself to learn. If people actually taught themselves about religion, then they would believe radically different things, but in a single church, beliefs of the members have a strong similarity, suggesting that there is a single person or body of knowledge that is guiding their beliefs. Even if you do "teach yourself" from reading and studying, it is the people who wrote the books and study material who are actually doing the teaching.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Tricky

More accurately, one allows oneself to learn. If people actually taught themselves about religion, then they would believe radically different things, but in a single church, beliefs of the members have a strong similarity, suggesting that there is a single person or body of knowledge that is guiding their beliefs. Even if you do "teach yourself" from reading and studying, it is the people who wrote the books and study material who are actually doing the teaching. Yes, and whose teaching do the words in Bible (the New Testament) reflect? Which was my whole point to begin with.

Hey, I'm not going to say I was without a teacher, in fact I used to listen to this guy on the radio for about ten years and, I learned a great deal (more than I could have imagined). However, it wasn't until after I turned the radio off that I learned so more than that, to the point to where I've completely transcended this other guy's view. And I never dreamed such a thing would be possible.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And I never dreamed such a thing would be possible.

That seems to be contradictory in light of:.... You are what you realize.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Diogenes
A Shroud of Doubt (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/75584.stm)

Whoa!! I'm convinced.. I'm waiting for the final report, revealing whether the writing was done with a ' Sharpie ' or an ' El Marko '.... If it had the words "Jesus" and "Nazareth" written on it then it is a fake for sure. His real name was (if memory serves), Yeshua bar Jacob. And Nazareth probably didn't exist at that time either – the word was Nazarene – a particular Jewish sect.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, and whose teaching do the words in Bible (the New Testament) reflect? Presumably those of the people who re-wrote the New Testament after the Council of Nicea in 333 AD.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by RichardR
If it had the words "Jesus" and "Nazareth" written on it then it is a fake for sure. His real name was (if memory serves), Yeshua bar Jacob. And Nazareth probably didn't exist at that time either – the word was Nazarene – a particular Jewish sect.

Along those same lines, I was reading that " Jesus of Nazareth " might have mean't " Jesus from Nowhere " ..


People who like to talk about secular historical documentation of the existance of Jesus, don't like to talk about the lack of historical documentation for the existance of a town/village named ' Nazareth ' during the supposed lifetime of Jesus..

[headscratcher4]

Actually, the "made in CHina" tag should have been the first sign.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Regardless of whether it dated back to the 1 Century AD, the shroud is a fake.

When you wrap cloth to take an impression, your image is horizontally distorted and stretched. There is no distortion on the shroud, that, and the fact the image is in fact of a European Jesus, is reason enough to suggest it isnt authentic.

Indeed. Very simple. You'd have to have a face with about the proportions of a wine bottle to_make an image like that.

[Marvel Frozen]

The face on the shroud is also not correctly proportioned. On a real human face the eyes are very close to the center of the head. The eyes on the shroud face are significantly higher.

This site (http://www.gaydeceiver.com/religion/turin/) has pictures showing the comparsion between a real face and the face on the shroud.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Marvel Frozen
The face on the shroud is also not correctly proportioned. On a real human face the eyes are very close to the center of the head. The eyes on the shroud face are significantly higher.

This site (http://www.gaydeceiver.com/religion/turin/) has pictures showing the comparsion between a real face and the face on the shroud.

Yup:

http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/turinshroud.jpg

[An Infinite Ocean]

I once had a very interesting book about early Christian art. Regrettably I have now sold it, but I do recall it mentioning that earliest representations of Christ did not have beards.

Perhaps the Christians adopted the current style around the same time as the popular Roman emperor, Antoninus Pius, enjoyed his 11 year reign....

http://www.robertingersoll.com/pius.jpg

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Yup:

http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/turinshroud.jpg

Two things to note:

1) I was totally amazed the first time I heard that the eyes were in the middle of the head. I still am. What a great optical illusion. And the comparisons with the other pictures of Jesus are very telling.

2) It looks like Nick Cage has a short head and Sigourney Weaver and Jennifer Love Hewitt have tall heads (but that might just be a hair effect). Everyone else looks pretty close.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
1) I was totally amazed the first time I heard that the eyes were in the middle of the head. I still am. What a great optical illusion. And the comparisons with the other pictures of Jesus are very telling.

Yup.

Originally posted by pgwenthold
2) It looks like Nick Cage has a short head and Sigourney Weaver and Jennifer Love Hewitt have tall heads (but that might just be a hair effect). Everyone else looks pretty close.

Huh? It is Jessica Lange, Penelope Cruz, Sigourney Weaver, Michelle Pfeiffer and Mena Suvari.

Weaver smiles, so her face is longer, but it has no impact on the relationship between top and bottom half.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Yup.



Huh? It is Jessica Lange, Penelope Cruz, Sigourney Weaver, Michelle Pfeiffer and Mena Suvari.

Weaver smiles, so her face is longer, but it has no impact on the relationship between top and bottom half.

Oh come one, Penelope Cruz, Jennifer Love Hewitt, I'm sure I'm not the first to make that mistake.

I still think the top of Weaver's head is taller than the bottom. Smiling doesn't change that, in fact, goes in the other direction.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Oh come one, Penelope Cruz, Jennifer Love Hewitt, I'm sure I'm not the first to make that mistake.

Nah, Tom Cr....shhhh.... :D

Originally posted by pgwenthold
I still think the top of Weaver's head is taller than the bottom. Smiling doesn't change that, in fact, goes in the other direction.

http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/weaver.jpg

Evidence. Always. :D

[Bikewer]

It's a very common mistake for beginning portrait artists to place the eyes too high on the face. The center is not exact on on faces, but it's very close. There's also a tendency to render one eye a bit higher than the other.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Does it seem strange to anyone else that there should be an image on a burial cloth in the first place?

Totally strange. But maybe that's the point.

Heck, according the bible it was claimed that Joseph wrapped him the cloth. If he was "wrapped" in the cloth, why does it look intead like he was laid on it first and then it was carefully laid over top of him, with no smearing or anything (if you believe some people, you can see details of coins in the eyes). How in the heck do you do that with a cover that wraps a person up?

Excellent questions all.

If this cloth was wrapped around a bloody dead man, it should have blood smeared all over the place, not some pristine image that has painting-like resolution. There was no way a bloody dead man was "wrapped" in this thing.

The body was cleaned up/annointed before he was wrapped up.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Tricky

True, but then why bring up physical stuff at all? Why do you need a "shocked shroud" for evidence if all the evidence you will ever need is in the Bible.

I actually agree.

Even the Catholic church agrees, as they are officially ambivalent about the Shroud.

I am interested in the Shroud as an anomaly. I can't even call it a fortean anomaly because fortean anomalies are categorized and classified as repeat observances/phenomena. It's a head scratcher.

Personally, I don't think the Bible saves people, and if I had to choose between Jesus and the Bible, I'd take Jesus. But that's just me. :)

The reason shroud is brought forth as physical evidence is to convince unbelievers, among whom are materialists.

I'm not sure. I think it's also to harden the troops. I can only speak anecdotally, but this "kind" of stuff seems to make people with shaky faith into passionate believers. Have any unbelievers actually ever accepted the Christian faith because of the Shroud? I'm not aware of a single one.

If I were a cynic, I might say that it's just a tourist gimmick. But honestly, I don't think that the people who actually hold and showcase and preserve the Shroud care about unbelievers in the sense of converting them with the Shroud. Granted, there are types who do use the Shroud in debate/forum. I'm not one of those, but I will defend or interject if opportunity arises.

Anyhow I disagree with your premise. Of course there are individuals who "bring forth" the Shroud in conversation, but if you're talking about bringing forth the Shroud materially, I don't think that has anything to do with unbelievers.

But it cannot convince unbelievers if it is not good evidence.

I agree. If I were an agnostic or something, it wouldn't convince me that Jesus was crucified and resurrected. It would certainly be a first-class anomaly, but the religious connection would just be an annoying attachment.

It's convincing to you if you already believe that "God would actually become a human being and die for our sin...", but that is literally preaching to the choir.

I'm not sure. Again, I posit that people who AREN'T quite sure what they believe might be the most influenced by such things (if I were to lump the Shroud with icons who weep myrrh etc). The people who already wholeheartedly believe don't, in fact, need the Shroud.

As a side note to your comments, do you think God actually died? Maybe a part of him? Have you ever considered the ramifications of having God dead (or "mostly dead") for three days?

I think that the physical body that God inhabited actually did die. God is not material, but he can use material in any way he chooses.

A common misunderstanding that almost all non-believers have, and perhaps even a majority of Christians have, is that Jesus is just the flesh and blood guy who hung on the cross. Not so. Jesus has always existed. He was begotten, not made. Jesus is not just the human Jesus.

As for the ramifications, there are many Christian legends that do explore the ramifications of what Jesus did for those 40 hours (he descended into Hell). The main ramification? He conquered death.

I'm not sure what a "pure" materialist is, but yes, if one believes that the only thing that can be shown to exist is the material universe, then that sort of leaves out God. However, they might believe that there was a (material) Christ who taught great philosophy, told great, metaphorical stories, and preached some great words to live by.

All Christians believe in a material Christ too. :)

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Just out of curiousity, for those who have seen the Jesus Snuff film, does the Shroud make an appearance?

I'm not sure about the snuff film you're talking about?

But this reminds me of a thought I had while watching the Passion. I kept an eye out for the Shroud, and it never did pop up. Veronica's Veil made a cameo.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Ladewig


And there are reasons to believe that the shroud did not come from Jerusalem, is not older than 1350, does not contain blood, does not represent a supine corpse, etc. etc. etc.

How do you explain the pollen and blood that are on the Shroud (just wondering).

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Bikewer
In the Skeptic's Dictionary article I cited, researchers who have examined the shroud in detail unequivically define the various stains as paint.
The provenance of the various "contaminants", including pollen from the region of Jerusalem, is highly suspect.

http://www.thevoicenews.com/News/2002/0614/In_Response/005.html

As for the pollen being suspect, of course it's suspect, it goes against what you want to believe.

The fact that there was a brisk trade in such pious frauds in the time period indicated by the carbon-dating seems to drive the nail into the coffin, so to speak.

Are there any other shrouds?

Why would the pious fraud put the nails in the wrists? Perhaps you should classify the fraud as impious, as that would be an impious place to put the wounds.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by KS_SKEPTIC



Take a look at this!:)

Leonardo Da Vinci (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/shroud.html)

Wow! They both had beards!

Leonardo seems to be short a mustache. But that doesn't matter!

Tee hee!

Ummm, anyhow.

"Radiocarbon" places the shroud in the 1200s or 1300s. Leonardo was born in 1452.

So anyhow, I'm glad you reject the radiocarbon dates like I do.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by RichardR
But you would have to assume that the labs doing the testing knew what they were doing, ie that they were experts in carbon dating.

Oh wait a minute, they were. :D

Then why does Gove (who is NOT a believer) reject the carbon dating and why does Gove completely lambast the testing procedures? I mean Gove INVENTED the procedures.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by RichardR
Not just the carbon dating. There is the fact that it was known to be a fake in the 14th century, according to a bishop's report to Pope Clement VII, dated 1389. Also that whole thing about the "blood" on the shroud really being red ochre and vermillion is pretty damming to the "not a fake" hypothesis. Still, if you're happy Jesus had red paint flowing through his veins, who am I to burst your bubble?

First the good news...you'd definitely reject the Da Vinci nonsense. That's good.

Actually, more good news. You seem to hold the opinion of a bishop in high esteem. Clement was non-committal, which is basically the position of most of the Catholic hierarchy in the past 600 years.

As for the blood, you have to believe what you want to believe I guess.
http://www.thevoicenews.com/News/2002/0614/In_Response/005.html

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Explain to me how the face got on the back of the linen.

If a face can appear on the back of the linen (obviously a fake), why can't the face on the front of the linen be a fake?

Why would the face on the back of the linen "obviously" be a fake?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by RichardR
Presumably those of the people who re-wrote the New Testament after the Council of Nicea in 333 AD.

Which books were re-written, and what changes were made exactly?

-Elliot

[An Infinite Ocean]

Originally posted by elliotfc
As for the blood, you have to believe what you want to believe I guess.
Does that pass for a proper response in your neck of the woods? I was expecting some kind of argument about how it IS blood, because....

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by epepke


Indeed. Very simple. You'd have to have a face with about the proportions of a wine bottle to_make an image like that.

Exactly, which is why Shroud believers don't believe that the Shroud is just a flesh-on-fabric impression.

Not that I'm saying that this is a straw horse of an argument, but what you're saying is probably something no Shroud believer would disagree with.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

About this eye/nose business, think about a bell curve distribution.

It's like saying Jesus couldn't have been a midget (assuming the Shroud was of a midget) and then showing photos of 10 people who are not midgets.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by An Infinite Ocean
I once had a very interesting book about early Christian art. Regrettably I have now sold it, but I do recall it mentioning that earliest representations of Christ did not have beards.

You're exactly right. Those representations looked very "Roman". I don't have a scanner. I'm sure you can find these representation on the net. They look like the usual Apollo
type representation.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by An Infinite Ocean

Does that pass for a proper response in your neck of the woods? I was expecting some kind of argument about how it IS blood, because....

Infinite...a link followed...which you apparently have no intention or desire to read. I don't like cutting and pasting when a link can send you to the source.

-Elliot

[scribble]

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=910745

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by elliotfc


...............



As for the blood, you have to believe what you want to believe I guess.
http://www.thevoicenews.com/News/2002/0614/In_Response/005.html

-Elliot


(15) Professors Pierluigi Barma-Ballone and Dr. Jerome Lejeune identified that the blood on the Shroud is real, type "AB." (16) Professor Marcello Canale detected DNA within the blood. To confirm this finding, U.S. scientists Dr. Victor Tryon and Nancy Mitchell Tryon also found human DNA as well.

Are you saying Jesus had type AB blood?

That tricky old Jehovah.. Always covering his tracks with those funky miracles...

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by elliotfc


I'm not sure about the snuff film you're talking about?

But this reminds me of a thought I had while watching the Passion. I kept an eye out for the Shroud, and it never did pop up. Veronica's Veil made a cameo.

-Elliot Technically, Jesus' shroud did make an appearance in the film (in an interesting shot, it's shown slowly "deflating" on Easter morning, as though the body occupying it had suddenly been teleported away). However, it is not displayed in such a way as to indicate that an imprint or image of Jesus' body was transferred to the cloth.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Marvel Frozen
The face on the shroud is also not correctly proportioned. On a real human face the eyes are very close to the center of the head. The eyes on the shroud face are significantly higher.

Maybe Jesus was microcephalic, or a Neanderthal. Although, in the latter case, he'd probably have been more like 5 feet tall.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Bikewer
It's a very common mistake for beginning portrait artists to place the eyes too high on the face. The center is not exact on on faces, but it's very close. There's also a tendency to render one eye a bit higher than the other.

Looking at the paintings of people from that time, I think it has more to do with "style", and not mistakes. The image of Jesus was not up for much interpretation, although there were some variation. E.g. whether he had a beard or not. ;)

Originally posted by elliotfc
The body was cleaned up/annointed before he was wrapped up.

And he was dead? So, why did he continue bleeding?

Originally posted by elliotfc
Why would the face on the back of the linen "obviously" be a fake?

How did it get there? (Don't answer a question with a question)

Originally posted by elliotfc
About this eye/nose business, think about a bell curve distribution.

It's like saying Jesus couldn't have been a midget (assuming the Shroud was of a midget) and then showing photos of 10 people who are not midgets.

For your argument to hold water, you will have to produce another image of Jesus, where his eyes were placed as high as on the images on the shroud and paintings.

You make the claim, you bring the evidence. Don't pick away at the arguments of skeptics, you bring positive evidence that this is actually Jesus. You bring evidence of how the imprint got there.

The onus is on you.

[KS_SKEPTIC]

Originally posted by elliotfc


Wow! They both had beards!

Leonardo seems to be short a mustache. But that doesn't matter!

Tee hee!

Ummm, anyhow.

"Radiocarbon" places the shroud in the 1200s or 1300s. Leonardo was born in 1452.

So anyhow, I'm glad you reject the radiocarbon dates like I do.

-Elliot

I never said I rejected the radiocarbon dates.
First of all, if I was Leonardo Da Vinci or somebody like him, I would not use a new cloth from Italy.
Lots of people brought back a lot of things from the so-called holy land including old burial shroud's. So why not use one from the so-called holy land?
The older it looked the better!!!
Second, I'm not necessarily saying that Da Vinci did it but that somebody with his kinda skill could have.
And most likely did!!!

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by epepke
Maybe Jesus was microcephalic, or a Neanderthal. Although, in the latter case, he'd probably have been more like 5 feet tall.
Jesus probably wasnt microcephalic, some people believe the head on the shroud is actually 5% too large for the rest of the body.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by elliotfc
I'm not sure about the snuff film you're talking about?


-Elliot

The snuff film. You know the one. The two hour movie about a guy getting tortured and killed. The one with no context, just a boatload of graphic violence. The one Christians are all agog about.

The Passion.

[headscratcher4]

Second, I'm not necessarily saying that Da Vinci did it but that somebody with his kinda skill could have.

I don't know that you would have had to be as sophisticated as DaVinci...just because today we are not sure how it was done (there are a number of credible therories I've read) doesn't mean that the technology was sophisticated or the insight on how to do it was particularly brilliant. In addition, as we don't know about the intent of the creation, it could have been created as a piece of art and only subsequently made into a "relic" -- the brilliance of re-purposing it (to use a phrase I hate) as a relic seems to me to be the cool stroke of brilliance.

Besides, I thought that the first notation of the existence of the cloth was in the 14th Century...significantly before DaVinci's time...who was most productive in the late 15th Century.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ipecac
The snuff film. You know the one. The two hour movie about a guy getting tortured and killed. The one with no context, just a boatload of graphic violence. The one Christians are all agog about.

The Passion.

Now, that is a goddamn(!) precise description! I had heard it described as violent porn, but you are absolutely right: It is a snuff movie.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Besides, I thought that the first notation of the existence of the cloth was in the 14th Century...significantly before DaVinci's time...who was most productive in the late 15th Century. The Shroud first appeared in 1356. (http://www.mcri.org/Shroud.html)

While Leonardo was born in 1452 (http://www.edu.pe.ca/kish/Grassroots/meet/cousk.htm)

So it would seem unlikely that Leonardo did it. ;)

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by RichardR
The Shroud first appeared in 1356. (http://www.mcri.org/Shroud.html)

While Leonardo was born in 1452 (http://www.edu.pe.ca/kish/Grassroots/meet/cousk.htm)

So it would seem unlikely that Leonardo did it. ;)

I find it interesting how both sides tend to toss stuff out without really thinking about it, like the implications of Jesus having type AB blood; as if this was a big plus for believers!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by RichardR
The Shroud first appeared in 1356. (http://www.mcri.org/Shroud.html)

While Leonardo was born in 1452 (http://www.edu.pe.ca/kish/Grassroots/meet/cousk.htm)

So it would seem unlikely that Leonardo did it. ;)

He could be reincarnated....? ;)

[Marvel Frozen]

The people who think the Shroud of Turin was made by DaVinci claim that the shroud that appeared in 1356 was not the same shroud as the Shroud of Turin. I'm not quite sure how that works, but that's what they claim.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Marvel Frozen
The people who think the Shroud of Turin was made by DaVinci claim that the shroud that appeared in 1356 was not the same shroud as the Shroud of Turin. I'm not quite sure how that works, but that's what they claim.

Yes, but was the DaVinci who appeared in the 1450s the real DaVinci?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Yes, but was the DaVinci who appeared in the 1450s the real DaVinci?

Are you thinking of the same timewarp (or TimeCube) that switched Paul McCartney in the late 60's?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Marvel Frozen
The people who think the Shroud of Turin was made by DaVinci claim that the shroud that appeared in 1356 was not the same shroud as the Shroud of Turin. I'm not quite sure how that works, but that's what they claim.

I have heard that he saw the "original" shroud and decided to make another one, the one we see today.

Cute theory, but I doubt that anyone could ever prove it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Cute theory, but I doubt that anyone could ever prove it.

Have the psychics prove it. After all, they talk to dead people...

[headscratcher4]

I doubt that anyone could ever prove it

Oh sure, set an impossibly high standard that takes all of the wonder out of life...you stink....:p

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Have the psychics prove it. After all, they talk to dead people...

Of course, it's so simple. How could I have been so blind.

I just need to contact John Edwards and have him ask DaVinci directly. Then we can get Fermat on the line and ask a few questions about that little theorem of his....

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


Oh sure, set an impossibly high standard that takes all of the wonder out of life...you stink....:p

yep, I am a dyed in the wool muggle. What can I say?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Of course, it's so simple. How could I have been so blind.

Use your third eye....

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
I just need to contact John Edwards and have him ask DaVinci directly. Then we can get Fermat on the line and ask a few questions about that little theorem of his....

No, no, "it doesn't work that way". He doesn't control who gets through. The ultimate cop-out.

[Virgil]

did anyone ever thing to take the discussion on a thread like this edit it for clarity and some details and publish a monograph on the shuord.


Virgil

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

No, no, "it doesn't work that way". He doesn't control who gets through. The ultimate cop-out.

Very convenient isn't it?

All the great historical mysteries that could be solved if we could just ask directly, yet all the mediums cn give us is "Your Aunt Barbera is very happy and loved you very much.". Not to mention the fact that if there was some sort of survival of consiousness after death, Beethoven might have a few more symphonies he might like to share, Poe a few more stories, and so on.

Ah well.....

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
I have heard that he saw the "original" shroud and decided to make another one, the one we see today.

Cute theory, but I doubt that anyone could ever prove it. You could carbon date it to see how old it is.

Oh wait…

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by RichardR
You could carbon date it to see how old it is.

Oh wait…

Besides, we are talking a difference of about 100 years. I honestly do not know what sort of accuracy carbon dating would have in trying to pinpoint a date that accurately.

[headscratcher4]

the "original" shroud

So, who got the original when they switched 'em?

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


So, who got the original when they switched 'em?

Zeus.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


So, who got the original when they switched 'em?

No clue. I was just reporting the story as I heard it. For all I know, the underwear gnomes confused it for a big diaper and stole it.

Though in all seriousness, I suppose finding a second, older shroud would go a long way toward proving the "DaVinci painted it" theory.

[headscratcher4]

Makes one wonder why just DaVinci...why not Raphael? Michelangello? Giotto? Or any number of wonderful painters/artists of that period?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Makes one wonder why just DaVinci...why not Raphael? Michelangello? Giotto? Or any number of wonderful painters/artists of that period?

Or even a complete unknown for that matter.

My guess would be that it is rather the same way that statments in some glurge e-mails tend to get attributed to famous people (you know, like this one (http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/paradox.asp) ). It's probably the same mentality, someone comes up with a famous name and it just sticks.

[Skeptical Greg]

I have revived this because an interesting point has arisen ( pun acknowledged ) due to another thread over in Para..
Stigmata (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38940)
Of course we have discussed the stigmata thing here before also, but I was wondering about the apparent contradiction here..

There are those who say that one of the things that gives a possibility of genuineness to the Shroud, is the fact that it depicts wounds located on the wrists; which would be indicitive of the actual crucifixion process; as opposed to the ' popular ' depiction of ' nails in the hands '...

But wait a minute!!
John 20:
24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

Earlier, Elliotfc wrote:
Two additional points:

-Only one "artifact" exists that has the wounds in the wrists. That artifact is the Shroud. No other painting, sculpture, anything has wounds in the wrists. If the Shroud is a medieval "forgery", it is one of the most extraordinary anomalies in existence, for the forger would have made a bad forgery, a forgery with nail wounds in places (the wrists) which would have gone against all other crucifixion depictions.
Wow Elliot, not only does it go against other crucifixion depictions, it goes against the Holy Scripture!

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I have revived this because an interesting point has arisen ( pun acknowledged ) due to another thread over in Para..
Stigmata (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38940)
Of course we have discussed the stigmata thing here before also, but I was wondering about the apparent contradiction here..

There are those who say that one of the things that gives a possibility of genuineness to the Shroud, is the fact that it depicts wounds located on the wrists; which would be indicitive of the actual crucifixion process; as opposed to the ' popular ' depiction of ' nails in the hands '...

But wait a minute!!

Wow Elliot, not only does it go against other crucifixion depictions, it goes against the Holy Scripture!

Seems that the scripture writers were just going for effect and not accuracy (don't mind the man behind the curtain) while the artist who created the shroud did some homework (while sticking to the incorrect physical proportions of human depiction of the time).

Kuroyume

[MINISTERofTRUTH]

.Bible Codes also say
Shroud of Turin
is an image of

http://www.outersecrets.com/real/image/j_store3.gif

Jesus Christ

http://www.outersecrets.com/real/biblecode_shroud_turin.htm

[Nogbad]

As opposed to previous claims for the image? :boggled:

[JoeEllison]

The shroud of that dude from Nickleback?

[Nogbad]

The shroud of that dude from Nickleback?

Thought I recognised him.

[Ocelot]

Radiocarbon dating says Shroud of Turin is medeval in origin
http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

[Nogbad]

Radiocarbon dating says Shroud of Turin is medeval in origin
http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

ah! but the image is much earlier

;)

[Dancing David]

Radiocarbon dating says Shroud of Turin is medeval in origin
http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm


Also the thread counts and the fibers, if I recall correctly.

[Morwen]

That's Frank Zappa (http://mraybould.wordpress.com/2007/08/18/love-lyrics-and-mental-health/). Duh. I thought everybody knew.

[LawnOven]

The Bible Code says lots of things.

http://dmitrybrant.com/fun-with-the-bible-code

[erlando]

Nonsensical claim...
No

[calebprime]

That's Frank Zappa (http://mraybould.wordpress.com/2007/08/18/love-lyrics-and-mental-health/). Duh. I thought everybody knew.

C'mon. Duane Allman.

[zooterkin]

Nah, it's the Dude.

[Tricky]

The most thorough job (in my opinion) of debunking the Shroud of Turin was done by Joe Nickell (http://www.scifidimensions.com/Aug00/jnf_shroud.htm). Heck, the fraud artist even confessed, and he lived at exactly the time that carbon dating says the shroud was created.
They had a number of experts: technical experts, forensic serologists - a very good team - art experts. They did take threads from blood-stained areas and had them tested, and they were analyzed by internationally known forensic serologists, and they failed every possible test - tests for blood group, or speciation, or microscopic identification of corpuscles - anything you could think of that could be used to test blood, they tried and failed. But they found traces that they thought were red paint.

The Shroud image is, in fact, unusually narrow; so long, so very long and narrow, that one pro-Shroud pathologist suggested that Jesus must have had Marfan's syndrome. But, in fact, this is just the style, you see, of French Gothic art in the middle of the 14th century. This is just what you would expect from the artist who confessed and is supported by the original carbon dating. And, in fact, the blood-stains are not real blood; and, in fact, they are tempera paint; and, in fact, they are still bright red - which is what you would expect from tempera but not real blood.

Also, check out Nickell's book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1573922722/scifidimensions)on the subject.

[-Fran-]

I took this picture in a church in Krakow, Poland. It's a copy. So it's a fake of the fake. How holy does that make this one, on a 1 - 10 scale? :)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_17202478f8016f2c93.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10265)

Sorry about the quality, bad lighting, cheap camera and lousy photographer :o

[pgwenthold]

Isn't it odd that Jesus's face just happened to have the proportionality what the midievel artists were incorrectly using in their paintings?

(with the eyes too close to the top of the head)

[MG1962]

It is fairly well know then Shroud is a fake - what I find interesting, the technology to make the fake is almost as fascinating to study as if the shroud was real

[Upchurch]

http://www.outersecrets.com/real/biblecode_shroud_turin.htm[/CENTER]

I love how it only works out if you occasionally drop a digit from the totals, but never consistently and never from the same place. How do people buy into this?

[Rodney]

The most thorough job (in my opinion) of debunking the Shroud of Turin was done by Joe Nickell (http://www.scifidimensions.com/Aug00/jnf_shroud.htm). Heck, the fraud artist even confessed, and he lived at exactly the time that carbon dating says the shroud was created.
Oh? Who was this person? The Wikipedia article -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_turin -- offers a very balanced presentation, and makes no mention of any "fraud artist" who "confessed.'' Also, it is unclear when the image on the shroud was formed:

"Skeptics contend the shroud is a medieval hoax, forgery, or the result of natural processes that are not yet understood. Radiocarbon dating in 1988 by three independent teams of scientists yielded results published in Nature indicating that the shroud was made during the Middle Ages, approximately 1300 years after Jesus lived. Follow-up analysis published in 2005, however, indicated that the sample dated by the teams was taken from an area of the shroud that was not a part of the original cloth. This analysis itself is questioned by skeptics such as Joe Nickell, who reason that the conclusions of the author, Raymond Rogers, result from 'starting with the desired conclusion and working backward to the evidence.' Nature editor Philip Ball has on the other hand noted that the idea that Rogers steered his study to a preconceived conclusion is 'unfair' and Rogers 'has a history of respectable work.' As of 2005, there is no universally accepted carbon dating result for the shroud in the scientific literature."

[slingblade]

As of 2005, there is no universally accepted carbon dating result for the shroud in the scientific literature."

Then I'd say we need one, provided that quote is accurate.

[MINISTERofTRUTH]

I love how it only works out if you occasionally drop a digit from the totals, but never consistently and never from the same place. How do people buy into this?

Perhaps they thought it through and through thoroughly, and determined that each of these " dropped digits " and their positions, also have meaning.

Others, on the other hand, choose to jump up and over the facts to reach a quick, cheap, and easy conclusion.

Others, on the wrong foot, choose to jump up and over the facts to reach a quick, cheap, and easy conclusion, and then expect and wait for someone else to do the hard work for them, and thus reveal the true facts. These people prefer slavery.

http://www.outersecrets.com/real/biblecode_shroud_turin.htm

[KingMerv00]

The shroud is bunk. Two words: Mercator Projection.

[El Greco]

I don't think we need a carbon dating. We all know that Jesus can mess with carbon molecules and rearrange their neutrons and electrons in order to confuse atheists.

[Upchurch]

Perhaps they thought it through and through thoroughly, and determined that each of these " dropped digits " and their positions, also have meaning.
Yeah, as in "manipulating the results is the only way it can get it to mean what we want it to mean".

Others, on the other hand, choose to jump up and over the facts to reach a quick, cheap, and easy conclusion.
Yeah, if it weren't for those darn facts, the world could be anything you can imagine!


The Bible Codes: Enigmas for Dummies (http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4048)

[Tricky]

Oh? Who was this person? The Wikipedia article -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_turin -- offers a very balanced presentation, and makes no mention of any "fraud artist" who "confessed.'' Also, it is unclear when the image on the shroud was formed:

"Skeptics contend the shroud is a medieval hoax, forgery, or the result of natural processes that are not yet understood. Radiocarbon dating in 1988 by three independent teams of scientists yielded results published in Nature indicating that the shroud was made during the Middle Ages, approximately 1300 years after Jesus lived. Follow-up analysis published in 2005, however, indicated that the sample dated by the teams was taken from an area of the shroud that was not a part of the original cloth. This analysis itself is questioned by skeptics such as Joe Nickell, who reason that the conclusions of the author, Raymond Rogers, result from 'starting with the desired conclusion and working backward to the evidence.' Nature editor Philip Ball has on the other hand noted that the idea that Rogers steered his study to a preconceived conclusion is 'unfair' and Rogers 'has a history of respectable work.' As of 2005, there is no universally accepted carbon dating result for the shroud in the scientific literature."
You do realize, don't you, that Wikipedia is not an authorative source. Anybody can write a Wikipedia entry. It's good for a quick reference, but it should by no mean be taken as... er... gospel. The same is true for many if not most references you get on the internet.

I have read the book and found it to be well supported with evidence. Plus, Joe Nickell is one of the most respected investigators in the skeptical community. He is thorough, painstaking and, above all, fair. As always, in my opinion.

[Beerina]

I wonder if one can find reference to the Shirt of Toledo in the Bible, too?

[KingMerv00]

I don't think we need a carbon dating. We all know that Jesus can mess with carbon molecules and rearrange their neutrons and electrons in order to confuse atheists.

That sly bastard (literally).

[Rodney]

I have read the book and found it to be well supported with evidence.
Okay, so let's hear Nickell's evidence that a "fraud artist even confessed" to painting (?) the Shroud of Turin.

[Alice Shortcake]

From Nickell's Inquest on the Shroud of Turin:

We know of this first investigation from a lengthy report sent to the Pope in 1389 by Bishop Pierre d'Arcis. The d'Arcis memorandum is a powerful charge against the authenticity of the Shroud. D'Arcis begins:

"The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes the Dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb...Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed."

You really should read the book, it's fascinating and totally convincing.

[Rodney]

The shroud is bunk. Two words: Mercator Projection.

That argument is disputed in an article titled "The Turin Shroud Was Not Flattened Before the Images Formed and No Major Image Distortions Necessarily Occur from a Real Body." Go to the Wikipedia article and click on reference [15]:

"One further objection to the Shroud turns on what might be called the 'Mercator projection' argument. The shroud in two dimensions presents a three-dimensional image projected onto a planar (two-dimensional) surface, just as in a photograph or painting. A true burial shroud, however, would have rested nearly cylindrically across the three-dimensional facial surface, if not more irregularly. The result would be an unnatural lateral distortion, a strong widening to the sides, in contrast to the kind of normal photographic image a beholder would expect, let alone the strongly vertically elongated image on the Shroud fabric.

"But this argument is disputed by the paper presented at [15]PDF (385 KiB). Essentially, distortions can be small if the Shroud was not lying tight against the body."

[Rodney]

From Nickell's Inquest on the Shroud of Turin:

We know of this first investigation from a lengthy report sent to the Pope in 1389 by Bishop Pierre d'Arcis. The d'Arcis memorandum is a powerful charge against the authenticity of the Shroud. D'Arcis begins:

"The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes the Dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb...Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed."

You really should read the book, it's fascinating and totally convincing.
Been there, done that. Respectfully, if you do some investigation, I think you will find that Nickell is one of the last persons clinging to the idea that the image was painted:

"The notion that such super-thin images were painted is preposterous. Yes, it is true that one scientist did look through a microscope and find components of what might have been paint. And because of this he concluded that the Shroud was painted. Walter McCrone was a world-renowned microscopist, deservedly so. He was a true scientist and he knew his craft well. We should not doubt that he found iron-oxide and mercury-sulfide, both constituents of paint. But there are many reasons why such chemical particles might be found on the Shroud. Water used for retting flax introduced iron. And centuries of dust, particularly dust in churches with frescoed ceiling and walls, introduced all manner of trace contaminants. All other scientists who examined the image fibers -- many of them every bit as renowned and qualified -- have disagreed with McCrone. There is, simply, an insufficient amount of paint constituents to form a visible image. Spectral analysis proves that. So does the now certain knowledge of the image bearing super-thin film. Ironically, McCrone identified the super-thin starch substance that ultimately became part of the proof that his conclusions were wrong.

"So what are we to make of a 14th century bishop, Pierre d'Arcis, who wrote in a memorandum that a painter confessed to painting the Shroud's images? In isolation his document is damning. But the skeptical inquirer, being true to his ways, must challenge such a claim with the full conspectus of what was being written at the time. Pierre's peers doubted his veracity and questioned his motives. It was all about money. Pierre was the bishop of Troyes. The Shroud was being exhibited at nearby Lirey; and it was to that town that pilgrims with bags of coins were flocking. The d'Arcis memorandum is pointless. The skeptical inquirer is fully justified in his skepticism; for no painter painted on a caramel substance and a surrounding clear substance that was a hundred times thinner than a single brush hair."

See http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/

[Skeptic Guy]

You do realize, don't you, that Wikipedia is not an authorative source. Anybody can write a Wikipedia entry. It's good for a quick reference, but it should by no mean be taken as... er... gospel. The same is true for many if not most references you get on the internet.

I have read the book and found it to be well supported with evidence. Plus, Joe Nickell is one of the most respected investigators in the skeptical community. He is thorough, painstaking and, above all, fair. As always, in my opinion.

As Tricky says, the information in Wikipedia is only as good as what is put in by the users so it needs to be treated with a grain (or a shaker) of salt.

From Nickell's Inquest on the Shroud of Turin:

We know of this first investigation from a lengthy report sent to the Pope in 1389 by Bishop Pierre d'Arcis. The d'Arcis memorandum is a powerful charge against the authenticity of the Shroud. D'Arcis begins:

"The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes the Dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb...Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed."

You really should read the book, it's fascinating and totally convincing.


That argument is disputed in an article titled "The Turin Shroud Was Not Flattened Before the Images Formed and No Major Image Distortions Necessarily Occur from a Real Body." Go to the Wikipedia article and click on reference [15]:

"One further objection to the Shroud turns on what might be called the 'Mercator projection' argument. The shroud in two dimensions presents a three-dimensional image projected onto a planar (two-dimensional) surface, just as in a photograph or painting. A true burial shroud, however, would have rested nearly cylindrically across the three-dimensional facial surface, if not more irregularly. The result would be an unnatural lateral distortion, a strong widening to the sides, in contrast to the kind of normal photographic image a beholder would expect, let alone the strongly vertically elongated image on the Shroud fabric.

"But this argument is disputed by the paper presented at [15]PDF (385 KiB). Essentially, distortions can be small if the Shroud was not lying tight against the body."

And taking information from a "debate" on a Shroud of Turin Newsgroup isn't really sound research either.

[Rodney]

And taking information from a "debate" on a Shroud of Turin Newsgroup isn't really sound research either.
You might try reading the article I referenced. And, now that Walter McCrone is no longer with us, I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a scientist who argues that the image was painted.

[Skeptic Guy]

I did read it.

Since the Vatican has locked up the shroud and won't let anyone analyze it anymore, that myth will probably grow. I wonder why they don't want anyone studying it again?

[MG1962]

I did read it.

Since the Vatican has locked up the shroud and won't let anyone analyze it anymore, that myth will probably grow. I wonder why they don't want anyone studying it again?

Everytime they try to date it - they have to snip a bit and destroy the sample in the process - basically they are running out of bits. The Church usually allows the shroud out every 20 years or so - Then scientist can do less invasive experiements at that time

[Hindmost]

I don't think we need a carbon dating. We all know that Jesus can mess with carbon molecules and rearrange their neutrons and electrons in order to confuse atheists.

so I guess he dated it to 1300 as a practical joke on the faithful...


glenn

[Silentknight]

How to make a Shroud of Turin:

1. Get a piece of transparent material, like a piece of glass.
2. Paint the negative image of someone's face on it.
3. Lay the glass over a piece of cloth.
4. Let this sit out in the sun for a while.

After this is done, you'll notice that the areas where the glass wasn't painted have let the light through to fade the cloth. You'll get darkened areas where the paint was covering it, and light areas where it wasn't. In this way, you can "paint" an image on the cloth without applying any paint to the actual cloth. This explains why the face more closely resembles an artistic representation than an anatomically correct face, and why the shading is scaled as if the image were "burned" into it.

[Loss Leader]

Thank you once again, MoT, for more important information. I'm glad you made this post.

[Rodney]

How to make a Shroud of Turin:

1. Get a piece of transparent material, like a piece of glass.
2. Paint the negative image of someone's face on it.
3. Lay the glass over a piece of cloth.
4. Let this sit out in the sun for a while.

After this is done, you'll notice that the areas where the glass wasn't painted have let the light through to fade the cloth. You'll get darkened areas where the paint was covering it, and light areas where it wasn't. In this way, you can "paint" an image on the cloth without applying any paint to the actual cloth. This explains why the face more closely resembles an artistic representation than an anatomically correct face, and why the shading is scaled as if the image were "burned" into it.
People have been trying for years to duplicate the image on the Shroud -- no one has come close, but let us know if you succeed.

[Hindmost]

People have been trying for years to duplicate the image on the Shroud -- no one has come close, but let us know if you succeed.

Joe Nickell was able to reproduce it without much problem.

glenn

[Silentknight]

People have been trying for years to duplicate the image on the Shroud -- no one has come close, but let us know if you succeed.
Uh, they kind of already did.

http://www.shadowshroud.com/

And check the internal links for more.

[Rodney]

Joe Nickell was able to reproduce it without much problem.

glenn
Right, in the same sense that a lot of amateurs have reproduced the Mona Lisa. But, if you think Nickell reproduced what is found on the Shroud, how about a point-by-point comparison of the Shroud and what Nickell did? For example, does Nickell's reproduction have a second face on the reverse side? See http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-second-image.htm

[KingMerv00]

Right, in the same sense that a lot of amateurs have reproduced the Mona Lisa. But, if you think Nickell reproduced what is found on the Shroud, how about a point-by-point comparison of the Shroud and what Nickell did? For example, does Nickell's reproduction have a second face on the reverse side? See http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-second-image.htm

What about the fact that "Jesus's" face should have been distorted if wrapped in the shroud?

[Rodney]

Uh, they kind of already did.

http://www.shadowshroud.com/

And check the internal links for more.
As Wikipedia notes: "[T]he experiment has not been repeated and the images have yet to face microscopic and chemical analysis. In addition, concerns have been raised about the availability or affordability of medieval glass large enough to produce the image and the method's compatibility with Fanti's claim that the original image is doubly superficial."

[Rodney]

What about the fact that "Jesus's" face should have been distorted if wrapped in the shroud?
Read the article I referenced in post #29: "The Turin Shroud Was Not Flattened Before the Images Formed and No Major Image Distortions Necessarily Occur from a Real Body."

[Tricky]

Read the article I referenced in post #29: "The Turin Shroud Was Not Flattened Before the Images Formed and No Major Image Distortions Necessarily Occur from a Real Body."
Yeah, I read that.
Essentially, distortions can be small if the Shroud was not lying tight against the body.
Yeah, I read that. What a load of bollox. The shroud was not lying tight against the body, yet it somehow picked up every detail of the face, including the hair? That the image was formed by vertical projection by blood dripping onto the shroud?

This is one of the worst pieces of apologetics I've ever seen. Why don't you try having someone lie face-down on a cloth and then drip fake blood down their face and see if what you get looks anything like the S of T. Or see if it bears a resemblance to French Gothic art in the middle of the 14th century.

You may be able to poke tiny pinholes in bits of the debunking, but they are insufficient for distorting the truth. It is paint on a cloth, made in the 14th century. Only those who desperately want to belive otherwise will dispute the evidence.

[Foster Zygote]

Read the article I referenced in post #29: "The Turin Shroud Was Not Flattened Before the Images Formed and No Major Image Distortions Necessarily Occur from a Real Body."

So Greenland really is bigger than Africa.

[skeptical]

As Wikipedia notes: "[T]he experiment has not been repeated and the images have yet to face microscopic and chemical analysis. In addition, concerns have been raised about the availability or affordability of medieval glass large enough to produce the image and the method's compatibility with Fanti's claim that the original image is doubly superficial."

Your seriously hanging your case on a Wikipedia article? Seems a little thin, don't you think, given that there are lots of scholarly resources on the subject?

In any case, you can prove to yourself that the shroud is a fake right in your own home, right now.

Lie down on your back, place your body entirely flat with your knees down and your arms at your sides. Put your feet together, and make your body completely limp as if you are dead. Now, WITHOUT LIFTING YOUR SHOULDERS OFF THE GROUND, take your hands and cross them so that the top of one palm is covering the other over your stomach.

Now, again, WITHOUT LIFTING YOUR SHOULDERS OFF THE GROUND, keep your hands crossed and move them down your abdomen and try to cover your groin as shown in the shroud. Unless you have abnormally long arms, you will not be able to do so. Your arms are simply not long enough to cross your groin in this position. The physical dimensions of the figure are not correctly proportioned. A dead body lying limp could not be posed in this manner.

The artist in all likelihood did not want to leave Jesus with exposed genitalia, which is why the arms are crossed over the groin and not over the stomach or chest where they should be.

This alone is enough to show the shroud is a forgery, the body geometry is simply wrong. The carbon dating to the 13th century, which, by the way, contrary to your Wiki entry is not in serious dispute, the lack of blood, the confession of the original forger, its dating to the correct time period when it mysteriously shows up, are just icing on the cake. The shroud is a forgery, like so many others during the time period from which it dates.

Case closed.

[Foster Zygote]

Your seriously hanging your case on a Wikipedia article? Seems a little thin, don't you think, given that there are lots of scholarly resources on the subject?

In any case, you can prove to yourself that the shroud is a fake right in your own home, right now.

Lie down on your back, place your body entirely flat with your knees down and your arms at your sides. Put your feet together, and make your body completely limp as if you are dead. Now, WITHOUT LIFTING YOUR SHOULDERS OFF THE GROUND, take your hands and cross them so that the top of one palm is covering the other over your stomach.

Now, again, WITHOUT LIFTING YOUR SHOULDERS OFF THE GROUND, keep your hands crossed and move them down your abdomen and try to cover your groin as shown in the shroud. Unless you have abnormally long arms, you will not be able to do so. Your arms are simply not long enough to cross your groin in this position. The physical dimensions of the figure are not correctly proportioned. A dead body lying limp could not be posed in this manner.

The artist in all likelihood did not want to leave Jesus with exposed genitalia, which is why the arms are crossed over the groin and not over the stomach or chest where they should be.

This alone is enough to show the shroud is a forgery, the body geometry is simply wrong. The carbon dating to the 13th century, which, by the way, contrary to your Wiki entry is not in serious dispute, the lack of blood, the confession of the original forger, its dating to the correct time period when it mysteriously shows up, are just icing on the cake. The shroud is a forgery, like so many others during the time period from which it dates.

Case closed.

I was able to cover mine, but just the tip, mind you.

[Hindmost]

Right, in the same sense that a lot of amateurs have reproduced the Mona Lisa. But, if you think Nickell reproduced what is found on the Shroud, how about a point-by-point comparison of the Shroud and what Nickell did? For example, does Nickell's reproduction have a second face on the reverse side? See http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-second-image.htm

I haven't seen the backside of either one, however: Who wouldn't expect a face on the back side...its fabric..it bleeds through. Doesn't the fact that someone can reproduce the image with very similar results--using materials from the past give you any skepticism?

glenn

[Skeptic Guy]

Everytime they try to date it - they have to snip a bit and destroy the sample in the process - basically they are running out of bits. The Church usually allows the shroud out every 20 years or so - Then scientist can do less invasive experiements at that time

I understand, but it's about twenty years now, but I don't think it has exactly been whittled down to a wash cloth.

Even then, I don't think the Church will allow another analysis. With the advances in this type of scientific testing of late, it will be easy to knock this fantasy on the head.

[Rodney]

I haven't seen the backside of either one, however: Who wouldn't expect a face on the back side...its fabric..it bleeds through. Doesn't the fact that someone can reproduce the image with very similar results--using materials from the past give you any skepticism?

glenn
If "someone can reproduce the image with very similar results--using materials from the past", I would be very impressed. But what I have seen so far doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[Nogbad]

If "someone can reproduce the image with very similar results--using materials from the past", I would be very impressed. But what I have seen so far doesn't stand up to scrutiny.


I have Saint Britney's butt bone and the Holy Teaspoon of Antioch if you are interested....very reasonable rates.

[Tricky]

If "someone can reproduce the image with very similar results--using materials from the past", I would be very impressed. But what I have seen so far doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
They probably could, but you might have to wait around for the "let it age for 600 years" part of the recipe.

Heck, I'd be impressed if someone could create an exact replica of this.
http://www.lazymotorbike.eu/motorcycles/firstmotorcycle/IMG_2478.jpg

[Beerina]

At a higher level, an image really means nothing anyway. Rodney, your position is that since science cannot reproduce it (yet), that therefore goddidit.

Now, of course, you can, if you like, take the position that the shroud wasn't against the face (for the purpose of picking up the image, anyway) but that some miracle occured that imprinted Jesus' image on it. But if that were the case, you'd still have the problem of demonstrating this isn't some remnant of a painting, which should also end up with the same result.

In other words, the assumption that it is a painting leftover is more reasonable than that it is a leftover of a miracle.

It's all academic, though, given the shroud has been carbon dated to be nowhere near 2,000 years old. One would have to admit that the history of humans using "holy relics" as tourist draws goes back to a long time before Jesus was even born, should be of some concern.

[Foster Zygote]

They probably could, but you might have to wait around for the "let it age for 600 years" part of the recipe.

Heck, I'd be impressed if someone could create an exact replica of this.
http://www.lazymotorbike.eu/motorcycles/firstmotorcycle/IMG_2478.jpg

Heeeeey, is that for sale?

[aggle-rithm]

I took this picture in a church in Krakow, Poland. It's a copy. So it's a fake of the fake. How holy does that make this one, on a 1 - 10 scale? :)



I heard they took a sample, and it tested positive for holiness.

It's since been disinfected.

[Hindmost]

If "someone can reproduce the image with very similar results--using materials from the past", I would be very impressed. But what I have seen so far doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Have you seen the shroud at all...or just pics on the internet? Have you compared versions.

glenn

[pgwenthold]

While not conclusive by any means, does it seem strange to anyone else that the image is laid out as it is? You know, with the body out the long way?

Is that the way that bodies 2000 years ago were "wrapped" for burial? That doesn't look wrapped to me at all? That's more like they laid the cloth down, put the body on it, and then folded up over the feet or head. Is that consistent with burial practices back then? Or were bodies wrapped more like mummies?

[A Christian Sceptic]

.Bible Codes also say
Shroud of Turin
is an image of

http://www.outersecrets.com/real/image/j_store3.gif

Jesus Christ

http://www.outersecrets.com/real/biblecode_shroud_turin.htm

FYI:
That above picture is actually a negative of a picture of the actual shroud image. Here is what you would see if you saw the shroud yourself:

http://www.factsplusfacts.com/images/asitappears.jpg

The details don't show up until you take a picture of it and look at the negative.

[sackett]

As far as I know, neither the RCC nor anyone else attributes supernatural powers to the Shroud, i.e., nobody claims that it does miracles. (I suppose that if they put it on public display we'd start hearing about cures and visions and such truck.) So let's give Eggs and the Curia this much credit: they aren't yet trying to make $$$ out of the thing.

The Church includes a number of thinking men. I would surmise that some of them, probably a majority, recognize the Shroud of Turin as an unfortunate hoax, like many another Medieval con job. It's not heresy to believe in it, but it is credulity. If the RCC would rather the whole thing just died of inanation, I can sympathise.

And I really hate to sympathise with the RCC.

[KingMerv00]

Read the article I referenced in post #29: "The Turin Shroud Was Not Flattened Before the Images Formed and No Major Image Distortions Necessarily Occur from a Real Body."

Completely my fault for missing that post. Sorry.

I accept that as a possible explanation.

[A Christian Sceptic]

The Church includes a number of thinking men. I would surmise that some of them, probably a majority, recognize the Shroud of Turin as an unfortunate hoax, like many another Medieval con job. It's not heresy to believe in it, but it is credulity. If the RCC would rather the whole thing just died of inanation, I can sympathise.


Since we don't know the original intention for it and who made it, do we know it was meant to be a hoax?

[Belz...]

I love how it only works out if you occasionally drop a digit from the totals, but never consistently and never from the same place. How do people buy into this?

No method, really. Kinda like homeopathy and astrology.

[Belz...]

Right, in the same sense that a lot of amateurs have reproduced the Mona Lisa.

Thereby proving that it was painted.

Read the article I referenced in post #29: "The Turin Shroud Was Not Flattened Before the Images Formed and No Major Image Distortions Necessarily Occur from a Real Body."

Nonsense. Unless it was completely flat, that argument is ridiculous.

[Belz...]

Since we don't know the original intention for it and who made it, do we know it was meant to be a hoax?

Because the original artist confessed.

[Curnir]

I took this picture in a church in Krakow, Poland. It's a copy. So it's a fake of the fake. How holy does that make this one, on a 1 - 10 scale? :)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_17202478f8016f2c93.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10265)

Sorry about the quality, bad lighting, cheap camera and lousy photographer :o

I don't believe you.



I can accept.
1 Bad Lighting
2 Cheap Camera

but I cannae accept te prmise that you're a 'lousy' anything.

Oh and as for the holy bit...
It's as holy as the owner can fool the pilgrims that it is.

[Rodney]

Have you seen the shroud at all...or just pics on the internet? Have you compared versions.

glenn
No, I haven't seen it and --even if I had -- that wouldn't prove anything. The important thing to remember is that many scientists have studied it and concluded that it wasn't painted; Walter McCrone was the exception. See http://www.shroudstory.com/faq/index.htm

[A Christian Sceptic]

Because the original artist confessed.

Really? Who?

[Rodney]

Because the original artist confessed.
Apparently, then, between 200-250 people perpetrated the Lindbergh baby kidnapping because that many confessed: "Between 200 and 250 people confessed to the Lindbergh kidnapping over the years, authorities say." See http://crimemagazine.com/07/lindbergh,0304-7.htm

[Skeptic Guy]

Really? Who?

See post #28.

[A Christian Sceptic]

See post #28.

From Post# 28

"The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes the Dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb...Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed."



Is this stating the buyer tried to pass it off as a miracle? Or the painter?

[slingblade]

Both.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Both.

Interesting. I always figured it was some form of art mistaken for or intentionally passed off by someone else as a miracle.

I do find it fascinating the original is a negative. Anyone know of other old artwork painted as a negative?

[Foster Zygote]

Interesting. I always figured it was some form of art mistaken for or intentionally passed off by someone else as a miracle.

Possible, but highly unlikely. Given the commonality of fake relics at the time that the shroud first comes to historical attention, it is likely that the intent was deception from the outset.

[-Fran-]

I don't believe you.



I can accept.
1 Bad Lighting
2 Cheap Camera

but I cannae accept te prmise that you're a 'lousy' anything.

Oh and as for the holy bit...
It's as holy as the owner can fool the pilgrims that it is.

Well, thank you :) but I really am a lousy photographer. In art school I was by far the worst in my class in the photography lessons :o

Yeah, it's a bit nuts isn't it? That they put up a copy of a fake "holy" object and it is to be worshipped. Like they would hand out xerox copies of one of the thousands of splinters from the cross and expect those (the copies) to be "holy" as well.

It really was a pretty church though, beautiful floral art nouveau murals.

[sackett]

And a tip o' the hat to Bishop Pierre d'Arcis. In an age when he could have appropriated the Shroud for his own profit, he debunked it. Perhaps he was simply an honest man; stranger things have happened in the long history of the Church.

And now let me ask you, Rodney: Do you yourself truly, genuinely, and actually think that this is the veritable piece of cloth that Jesus Himself Christ was wrapped in?

[-Fran-]

I heard they took a sample, and it tested positive for holiness.

It's since been disinfected.

:D

[Belz...]

Apparently, then, between 200-250 people perpetrated the Lindbergh baby kidnapping because that many confessed: "Between 200 and 250 people confessed to the Lindbergh kidnapping over the years, authorities say." See http://crimemagazine.com/07/lindbergh,0304-7.htm

Your point ?

[skeptical]

Apparently, then, between 200-250 people perpetrated the Lindbergh baby kidnapping because that many confessed: "Between 200 and 250 people confessed to the Lindbergh kidnapping over the years, authorities say." See http://crimemagazine.com/07/lindbergh,0304-7.htm


The shroud is clearly a fake for the simple reason that the body geometry is incorrect. See my post #47.

And for the record, it was a local Bishop who FOUND the forger and informed Rome, around the time that the shroud was "discovered". Which also happens to be around the age that C-14 dating determined it to be. Wow, what a coincidence.

It's a fake. Get over it.

[Nogbad]

However it is a very old and rather good fake. The passage of time and the amount of devotion it has accumulated means it is unlikely to be discarded.

[Silentknight]

In any case, you can prove to yourself that the shroud is a fake right in your own home, right now.

Lie down on your back, place your body entirely flat with your knees down and your arms at your sides. Put your feet together, and make your body completely limp as if you are dead. Now, WITHOUT LIFTING YOUR SHOULDERS OFF THE GROUND, take your hands and cross them so that the top of one palm is covering the other over your stomach.

Now, again, WITHOUT LIFTING YOUR SHOULDERS OFF THE GROUND, keep your hands crossed and move them down your abdomen and try to cover your groin as shown in the shroud. Unless you have abnormally long arms, you will not be able to do so. Your arms are simply not long enough to cross your groin in this position. The physical dimensions of the figure are not correctly proportioned. A dead body lying limp could not be posed in this manner.

The artist in all likelihood did not want to leave Jesus with exposed genitalia, which is why the arms are crossed over the groin and not over the stomach or chest where they should be.

This alone is enough to show the shroud is a forgery, the body geometry is simply wrong. The carbon dating to the 13th century, which, by the way, contrary to your Wiki entry is not in serious dispute, the lack of blood, the confession of the original forger, its dating to the correct time period when it mysteriously shows up, are just icing on the cake. The shroud is a forgery, like so many others during the time period from which it dates.

Case closed.
No, no, no. Don't you get it? Obviously Jesus was run over by a steamroller, not crucified as the bible says. This explains why the body looked so distorted, duh. I mean, really. A steamroller did it! :D

[Hindmost]

No, I haven't seen it and --even if I had -- that wouldn't prove anything. The important thing to remember is that many scientists have studied it and concluded that it wasn't painted; Walter McCrone was the exception. See http://www.shroudstory.com/faq/index.htm

McCrone wasn't the only one. Not too many people have had access.

What about other inconsistencies... the fact that a shroud was not how jewish people bury their dead..and not inaccordance with the bible...and how medival the image appears when jesus was from Roman times.

doesn't this raise any skepticism?

glenn

[Rodney]

And a tip o' the hat to Bishop Pierre d'Arcis. In an age when he could have appropriated the Shroud for his own profit, he debunked it. Perhaps he was simply an honest man; stranger things have happened in the long history of the Church.
See Post #30: "Pierre's peers doubted his veracity and questioned his motives. It was all about money. Pierre was the bishop of Troyes. The Shroud was being exhibited at nearby Lirey; and it was to that town that pilgrims with bags of coins were flocking. The d'Arcis memorandum is pointless."

And now let me ask you, Rodney: Do you yourself truly, genuinely, and actually think that this is the veritable piece of cloth that Jesus Himself Christ was wrapped in?
That has not been proven, but the hypothesis that the image was painted has been discredited, if not disproven.

[Rodney]

Your point ?
That throughout history people have confessed to crimes and other unethical activity that they had nothing to do with. And confessing to cleverly forging the Shroud of Turin might well have been a good thing financially for an aspiring artist.

[Rodney]

McCrone wasn't the only one. Not too many people have had access.

What about other inconsistencies... the fact that a shroud was not how jewish people bury their dead..and not inaccordance with the bible...and how medival the image appears when jesus was from Roman times.

doesn't this raise any skepticism?

glenn
Sure, but on the other hand, consider this passage from the Wikipedia article:

"As a depiction of Jesus, the image on the shroud corresponds to that found throughout the history of Christian iconography. For instance, the Pantocrator mosaic at Daphne in Athens is strikingly similar. Skeptics attribute this to the icons being made while the Image of Edessa was available, with this appearance of Jesus being copied in later artwork, and in particular, on the Shroud. In opposition to this viewpoint, the locations of the piercing wounds in the wrists on the Shroud do not correspond to artistic representations of the crucifixion before close to the present time. In fact, the Shroud was widely dismissed as a forgery in the 14th century for the very reason that the Latin Vulgate Bible stated that the nails had been driven into Jesus' hands and Medieval art invariably depicts the wounds in Jesus' hands. Modern biblical translations recognize this as an error in translating the Greek text of the Gospels and the lack of a clear word, as in English, which defines the wrist as a separate anatomical entity from the hand which it supports. Additionally, modern medical science reveals that the metacarpal bones are incapable of supporting a crucified body, and that, contrary to the almost universally held belief in the 14th century, the nails had to have been driven through the victim's wrists, as depicted in the Shroud."

[Tricky]

That throughout history people have confessed to crimes and other unethical activity that they had nothing to do with. And confessing to cleverly forging the Shroud of Turin might well have been a good thing financially for an aspiring artist.
Oh just give it up Rodney. Carbon dating, tempera paint, artist confession, cultural mismatch, badly proportioned images, incorrect projection, similarity to popular art of the day... how much evidence do you need? Is it so important for this to be real to you that you're willing to believe all that debunking is wrong? You haven't made a convincing case for any of the counterclaims, and to be right, you would have to show that they were all not only possible but likely.

You need to pick your battles more carefully. This one was lost to you from square one.

[Rodney]

Oh just give it up Rodney. Carbon dating, tempera paint, artist confession, cultural mismatch, badly proportioned images, incorrect projection, similarity to popular art of the day... how much evidence do you need? Is it so important for this to be real to you that you're willing to believe all that debunking is wrong? You haven't made a convincing case for any of the counterclaims, and to be right, you would have to show that they were all not only possible but likely.

You need to pick your battles more carefully. This one was lost to you from square one.
All of your evidence has been strongly challenged, and the artist confession is the weakest link in the chain. And the apparent strongest link -- the carbon dating of a small segment of the Shroud -- came under attack three years ago by the late chemist Raymond Rogers:

"The combined evidence from chemical kinetics, analytical chemistry, cotton content, and pyrolysis/ms proves that the material from the radiocarbon area of the shroud is significantly different from that of the main cloth. The radiocarbon sample was thus not part of the original cloth and is invalid for determining the age of the shroud." See http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-carbon-14.htm

However, I agree that Shroud advocates have the burden of proving that it is 2,000 years old.

[skeptical]

"The combined evidence from chemical kinetics, analytical chemistry, cotton content, and pyrolysis/ms proves that the material from the radiocarbon area of the shroud is significantly different from that of the main cloth. The radiocarbon sample was thus not part of the original cloth and is invalid for determining the age of the shroud." See http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-carbon-14.htm

However, I agree that Shroud advocates have the burden of proving that it is 2,000 years old.

Please explain why the arms in the shroud are far too long for a normally proportioned human being.

And as for your link, that is absolutely ridiculous. Do you really think that the team of scientists, given the once in a lifetime opportunity to C-14 test the shroud cloth would have been so careless as to take a sample that was from the WRONG part of the shroud? Surely this stretches even the credulity of the faithful far beyond the breaking point?

Not that it matters really. As I have now said 3 times, the body geometry is wrong. Case closed.

[Tricky]

All of your evidence has been strongly challenged, and the artist confession is the weakest link in the chain. And the apparent strongest link -- the carbon dating of a small segment of the Shroud -- came under attack three years ago by the late chemist Raymond Rogers:
They might have been challenged, but those challenges failed. The shroud has been tested more than once and they findings all show approximately the same date.

And I haven't seen anything to seriously challenge things like how the projected face appeared on the cloth. No mechanism has been proposed for this supposed "projection", whereas having someone paint it provides a well understood method that was common in those times. That is one heck of a lot more likely than the bizarre contortions of evidence and logic that it would require to believe that it was projected.

Taken together, the challenges might throw some small amount of doubt on one or more of the pieces of evidence, but they don't form a coherent story that rivals the explanation and multiple pieces of evidence that suggest it is a thirteenth century fraud. Not even close.

[Rodney]

Please explain why the arms in the shroud are far too long for a normally proportioned human being.
Incorrect, according to Mario Latendresse, in the article I referenced previously:

"[T]he argument that the top half of the Shroud could not have been draping a real body when the images formed -- to avoid prominent image distortions -- is shown to be incorrect. If a cloth is appropriately laid on the front part of a body, and a body image forms by a vertical projection on the cloth, no major image distortions occur. Small image distortions are to be expected, and indeed we can observe some on the Shroud."

"The necessity to flatten the top half of the Shroud is most often supported by the lack of prominent image distortions. The argument is typically as follow: If the top half of the Shroud were laying on the body when the images were formed, we would see image distortions when the Shroud is unwrapped and laid flat. For example, the face would widen and appear distorted, similar to the distortions of a Mercator projection on a flat surface.

"This argument is no longer clear if we consider the top half of the Shroud covering a body in a loose way. In that case, it does not follow tightly the contour of a body. Its surface is between a body surface and a completely flat surface. And, if the width and length of an image body part increase symmetrically, to some reasonable extent, there will be no apparent distortions. It is simply similar to a rescaling of an image --and this shows no distortions."

And as for your link, that is absolutely ridiculous. Do you really think that the team of scientists, given the once in a lifetime opportunity to C-14 test the shroud cloth would have been so careless as to take a sample that was from the WRONG part of the shroud? Surely this stretches even the credulity of the faithful far beyond the breaking point?
Can you refute Rogers' arguments? If so, let's hear the refutation.

Not that it matters really. As I have now said 3 times, the body geometry is wrong. Case closed.
You can say it 100 times and it won't matter unless you can refute Latendresse's arguments.

[calebprime]

All of your evidence has been strongly challenged, and the artist confession is the weakest link in the chain.

minor point: the arguments against the shroud's authenticity are not a chain. Each is independent from the other.

Incorrect, according to Mario Latendresse, in the article I referenced previously:

"[T]he argument that the top half of the Shroud could not have been draping a real body when the images formed -- to avoid prominent image distortions -- is shown to be incorrect. If a cloth is appropriately laid on the front part of a body, and a body image forms by a vertical projection on the cloth, no major image distortions occur. Small image distortions are to be expected, and indeed we can observe some on the Shroud."

"The necessity to flatten the top half of the Shroud is most often supported by the lack of prominent image distortions. The argument is typically as follow: If the top half of the Shroud were laying on the body when the images were formed, we would see image distortions when the Shroud is unwrapped and laid flat. For example, the face would widen and appear distorted, similar to the distortions of a Mercator projection on a flat surface.

"This argument is no longer clear if we consider the top half of the Shroud covering a body in a loose way. In that case, it does not follow tightly the contour of a body. Its surface is between a body surface and a completely flat surface. And, if the width and length of an image body part increase symmetrically, to some reasonable extent, there will be no apparent distortions. It is simply similar to a rescaling of an image --and this shows no distortions."



No matter what rescaling there is, it wouldn't effect the position of the hands in relation to the genitals. I actually tried this, and indeed, my arms weren't long enough--and I'm, um, normally proportioned. And, Latendresse doesn't address this issue in the quote, so I don't really understand how it needs to be rebutted. What am I missing?

[pgwenthold]

Please explain why the arms in the shroud are far too long for a normally proportioned human being.



Similarly, the eyes are too close to the top of the head. Coincidentally, artists at the time the shroud appeared had this bad habit of drawing/painting the subjects' eyes too close to the top of the head. But I'm sure that is just coincidence.

[pgwenthold]

They might have been challenged, but those challenges failed. The shroud has been tested more than once and they findings all show approximately the same date.

Remember when there were complaints that the carbon dating was wrong because the shroud had been in a fire, and therefore could have been contaminated by the ash?

Of course, anyone who knows anything about carbon dating would realize that, in order for such contamination to cause a 1300 year error in the dating, it would require more ash than actual cloth. And besides, do you really think the scientists who did the carbon dating were so stupid to not clean the fibers before dating them?

So when those objections were so soundly trashed, they switched to the "it was a new part of the shroud."

Desperation.

[Jono]

Here are a few established facts about the Shroud of Turin.


The shroud contradicts the Gospel of John, which describes multiple cloths (including a separate “napkin” over the face), as well as “an hundred pound weight” of burial spices—not a trace of which appears on the cloth.
No examples of the shroud linen’s complex herringbone twill weave date from the first century, when burial cloths tended to be of plain weave in any case
The shroud has no known history prior to the mid-fourteenth century, when it turned up in the possession of a man who never explained how he had obtained the most holy relic in Christendom.
The earliest written record of the shroud is a bishop’s report to Pope Clement VII, dated 1389, stating that it originated as part of a faith-healing scheme, with “pretended miracles” being staged to defraud credulous pilgrims.
The bishop’s report also stated that a predecessor had “discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested to by the artist who had painted it” (emphasis added).
Although, as St. Augustine lamented in the fourth-century, Jesus’ appearance was completely unknown, the shroud image follows the conventional artistic likeness.
The physique is unnaturally elongated (like figures in Gothic art), and there is a lack of wraparound distortions that would be expected if the cloth had enclosed an actual three-dimensional object like a human body. The hair hangs as for a standing, rather than reclining figure, and the imprint of a bloody foot is incompatible with the outstretched leg to which it belongs.
The alleged blood stains are unnaturally picture-like. Instead of matting the hair, for instance, they run in rivulets on the outside of the locks. Also dried “blood” (as on the arms) has been implausibly transferred to the cloth. The blood remains bright red, unlike genuine blood that blackens with age.
In 1973, internationally known forensic serologists subjected the “blood” to a battery of tests—for chemical properties, species, blood grouping, etc. The substance lacked the properties of blood, instead containing suspicious, reddish granules.
Subsequently, the distinguished microanalyst Walter McCrone identified the “blood” as red ocher and vermilion tempera paint and concluded that the entire image had been painted.
In 1988, the shroud cloth was radiocarbon dated by three different laboratories (at Zurich, Oxford, and the University of Arizona). The results were in close agreement and yield a date range of a.d. 1260–1390, about the time of the reported forger’s confession (ca. a.d. 1355)


The following links provide a rather coherent grasp of the matter.
http://skepdic.com/shroud.html
http://www.csicop.org/articles/shroud/index2.html
http://www.csicop.org/articles/shroud/index.html
http://www.mcri.org/Shroud.html

[pgwenthold]

No matter what rescaling there is, it wouldn't effect the position of the hands in relation to the genitals. I actually tried this, and indeed, my arms weren't long enough--and I'm, um, normally proportioned. And, Latendresse doesn't address this issue in the quote, so I don't really understand how it needs to be rebutted. What am I missing?

That Rodney is frantically grasping at straws that don't exist?

I had the same response you did. What did this thing he posted have to do with the objection that, if a man is lying flat on his back, his arms are not long enough to cover his genitals?

[Jono]

The microanalyst Walter McCrone discovered (in 1980) that the blood and image areas were painted on by vermilion tempera paint and red ocher.
He also said the following, on possible contamination criticism;
"A simple calculation shows that a weight of modern biological material necessary to raise the shroud date 1300 years would weigh twice as much as the shroud by itself."

On Raymond Rogers work having proved otherwise.
No, his research still hasn't proved that it was real, since no new research has been done on the physical shroud-cloth itself since the carbon-14 tests, there was simply this chemist out of Los Angeles that laid reasonable grounds that the patch tested in 1988 was one of the pieces of cloth used to repair the shroud.
His article itself doesn't negate the carbon-14 method or the test itself, it merely suggest another possible hypothesis that it might be older, that the tested material might have been contaminated or that it was done on the repaired parts of the shroud, and call for additional CARBON-14 tests of it!

Neither does the article negate the tests on the blood on the shroud, which has been established by numerous experts that it wasn't really blood.

The article Rogers, as I mentioned above, essentially reports a recent criticism of the established account with a new notion that the three independant tests conducted in 1988 might have tested the repaired parts of the shroud, it doesn't negate the tests nor the scientific method at all, nor the microanalytical tests establishing that the blood (paint) on the cloth is faked.

[Tricky]

Can you refute Rogers' arguments? If so, let's hear the refutation.
Very simple. Why doesn't Rogers show how this happened. You could simulate a bleeding body and put a shroud on it just exactly as he described. Then see if anything remotely similar to the Shroud of Turin is generated.

If you (or Rogers, or Latendresse) wants to claim it was magic, then just say it straight out. There will be no need to try to explain it because magic is... well... magic. But if you and they are going to try to make it sound like it has an explanation in the real world, well, there are ways of testing such explanations, like I describe above. I've never heard of any body projecting an image onto cloth. That sounds pretty much magical to me, but I'm willing to be convinced with proper evidence. Can you explain how it would happen in a non-magical way?

[-Fran-]

The article Rogers, as I mentioned above, essentially reports a recent criticism of the established account with a new notion that the three independant tests conducted in 1988 might have tested the repaired parts of the shroud

With the "repaired parts", did he mean the patches sewn on after the fire? But if they might have tested that cloth instead of the original cloth, then the test would have shown the shroud being from the 16th century, and not, as the tests did show, from the 14th century, since the fire happened in 1532, if I am not mistaken. I mean it doesn't help their case to suggest this?? :confused:

[Jono]

With the "repaired parts", did he mean the patches sewn on after the fire? But if they might have tested that cloth instead of the original cloth, then the test would have shown the shroud being from the 16th century, and not, as the tests did show, from the 14th century, since the fire happened in 1532, if I am not mistaken. I mean it doesn't help their case to suggest this?? :confused:

Heh, you are a clever one. I've read most articles pertaining to this mythical trinket and I never stopped to note on this very simple contradiction.
Yes, if they did indeed test only the repaired parts of the cloth, all of them in every test (somehow?), then it would not have been dated to the 14th century. Well, at least not without additional qualifiers or arguments showing how this is of greater probability.
Rogers research is hypothetical and he's making conjectures ad nauseum. Ie, he's guessing with only a few variables yet without considering the whole case.

[-Fran-]

Heh, you are a clever one. I've read most articles pertaining to this mythical trinket and I never stopped to note on this very simple contradiction.

Well, thank you :)


Rogers research is hypothetical and he's making conjectures ad nauseum. Ie, he's guessing with only a few variables yet without considering the whole case.

It seems so, yes. :rolleyes:

From pure coincidence I have the book "Mannen i svepeduken" (The Man in the Shroud) by Bishop Sven Danell, printed in 1978, on my desk right now (among a large heap of other books). Have you read it? It's an almost charming little piece of total nonsense :)

[Jono]

It seems so, yes. :rolleyes:

From pure coincidence I have the book "Mannen i svepeduken" (The Man in the Shroud) by Bishop Sven Danell, printed in 1978, on my desk right now (among a large heap of other books). Have you read it? It's an almost charming little piece of total nonsense :)

Haha, well I haven't read the whole thing but I browsed through it once. Jag är också svensk ;)

[-Fran-]

Haha, well I haven't read the whole thing but I browsed through it once. Jag är också svensk ;)

Hej, annan svensk! :) Yeah, I saw that you were, so I thought you might know the book :)