Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Anybody see that History Channel show about the 3D Shroud of Turin image?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:20 PM
Original message
Anybody see that History Channel show about the 3D Shroud of Turin image?
I watched it last night and just don't know what to make of it. Many years ago I sort of followed some of the research, and I don't remember what my conclusion was except that I lost interest, so I must have concluded that it was not supernatural in any way.

I know that this is one of those things that will probably never be resolved one way or the other, but curious what my fellow DUers think, if they've followed the story and more particularly, if you saw the History channel show.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
KILL THE WISE ONE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. watched but was busy cooking and doing dishes
seamed to be mostly about what shape was the "Jesus" head then anything else. so all I learned was if it was him then he had a big nose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. The subtext though was how such a 3D-renderable image was created
Frankly I wasn't all that interested in what the face actually looked like, but in what the scientists say about the creation of the image.

I think the most interesting fact was that the image itself was a very superficial layer on the fibers, it was literally just on the surface.

They seemed to have decided that the image was created using light in some way (they must have determined that there was no pigment such as from paint; although there clearly was blood, human blood, or so they say. I wish they would have shown the pigment saturation of the fibers in the areas where there was lots of blood, for comparison.

But back to the light issue: they evaluated whether it could have been created via either direct (laser) or scattered light, and in neither case would the image be produced as it occurs on the shroud. However, when they used a technique similar to how a scanner/copier machine works, with the light source moving across the subject in slices, then they were able to reproduce the image.

I find that fascinating. What it means, I don't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 04:30 AM
Response to Reply #9
148. IIRC, it was determined at least a decade ago that the cloth iteslf was made
ca. the 13th century and that the image seems to have been applied somehow to the surface.

No spooks involved, but a lot of showmanship and people willing to believe anything.

There are a lot of crying statues, too, and well preserved dead "saints".

And jesus picture on a screen door....
Looks just like him!

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kalyke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #148
166. Actually, that's in question, now, too.
The cloth they used has been proven to have been woven into older cloth.

But the age of the cloth itself has been the focal point of dispute since 1988. In that pivotal year, church-sanctioned research led by the British Museum determined the cloth was from the Middle Ages, centuries after Jesus Christ's death by crucifixion in A.D. 33 or 34.

Three independent laboratories at Oxford, Zurich and Tucson, Ariz., used carbon dating to determine the cloth was made between A.D. 1260 and 1390.

Those findings doused most interest from the scientific community, except among those professional and amateur researchers who still believed it was authentic.

Within a few years, those researchers found what they considered damning evidence against the carbon dating: The sample used in 1988, they contended, was from a section that had been woven into the shroud after the 1532 fire. Their research was published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, lending it credence.


http://www.sltrib.com/features/ci_14800549
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #166
175. Just steal the fucking thing and burn it. No more "controversy".
Edited on Mon Apr-05-10 03:37 PM by old mark
Believers, it is a con from many years ago that you are still buying. Wake up and get over your belief in spooks and goblins.


mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
11 Bravo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #175
176. Yeah, because when I'm sure I'm right, the first thing I want to do is destroy any evidence.
Let's blow up a few more Buddha statues while we're at it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #176
195. Yep, and fire up the bulldozers
at ground zero and Pentagon...quick, as in hurry-up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #176
209. Look the "shroud" is a fucking carnival attraction made up to impress ignorant peasants.
It obviously still works.

Give up a little money and maybe you can get a miracle, too.

Grow up and smell the bullshit.



mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugabear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. Stopped watching the "History" channel years ago
They have a strange fascination with Naziism (especially Nazis and the occult), Nostradamus, "Bible Code", Bigfoot, aliens, and all sorts of nonsense mumbo-jumbo bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KILL THE WISE ONE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
18. bigfoot is real
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugabear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. mmmmmmmkay....
Until there is scientific evidence of that, I'm going to have to pass. Funny how that, despite thousands of so-called "sightings", and many intensive scientific expeditions, there is still absolutely no shred of evidence. No DNA, no corpses, nothing. Surely with so many hunters and armed people claiming they've seen Bigfoot, you'd think that at least somebody would have bagged one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KILL THE WISE ONE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #24
32. They are exceptionally wily prey
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugabear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #32
38. I cannot believe something for which there is no evidence whatsoever
For any species to exist, there needs to be a sizable breeding population. And despite many serious scientific expeditions to look for "Bigfoot", there has yet to be any serious evidence uncovered to suggest they're real.

This is the same reason I don't believe in the Jersey Devil, Loch Ness Monster, dinosaurs in the Congo, chupacabra, or any other mythical creature. All of these examples have had plenty of supposed "sightings". Many of these have local residents who swear by their existence. Yet there is no evidence for any of their existence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KILL THE WISE ONE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #38
64. your no fun, bring your camping gear and we can go hunt one for the july 4th
one of my boy friends says the chupacabra is real too. :smoke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
awoke_in_2003 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #38
129. Here ya go...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4vL-ajp8sU

(sorry, there is nothing funnier than a fish to the groin, unless it's your groin :hi:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #32
123. And whenever one dies, their family buries it in the earth very very
Deep.

after a short funeral, of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
semillama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #24
160. well, actually, there is some scientific evidence for it
But there's nothing definitive. Check out Dr. Jeff Meldrum's work on the analysis of the footprints, documented in his book "Sasquatch: Legend meets Science" - it made me put Bigfoot in the "maybe" column. Meldrum specializes in the evolution of bipedal locomotion in hominids, and was a doubter himself before he started really closely examining the tracks, and came up with some discoveries that make the existence of such a creature not so impossible to consider.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MUAD_DIB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
197. We call it the Hitler Channel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
3. It's been resolved
And guess what? It's not supernatural. Whodathunkit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #3
116. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greybnk48 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
121. Ditto.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
4. Every objective, scientific test ever done on the Shroud of Turin shows it's a Medieval forgery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. And also the weave wasn't invented for some 200 years after his death.
Not much about religion has proved to be true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zeemike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #14
73. really ? Who invented that weave?
That seems a fair question considering that you know for certain about the date and all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #73
99. The person who created the Shroud confessed.
A researcher from my home town was part of the first real scientific exam. He had samples of the "blood." When he discovered it was red paint (vermillion), he got fired.

BTW, compare the shroud with burial clothes used in Israel at that time.

Crucifixion victims were not taken down. They were allowed to rot on the cross. Not only was it a deterrent, it was also an insult to the Jewish laws.

An empty grave is not unusual because the bones are collected and put in an ossuary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zeemike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #99
119. There are all kinds of responses I could give to that
But based on previous experiences with this and other topics like this I know it is futile.
No intelligent discussion can take place because of the ideology that is behind both sides....and it makes it difficult to to talk about it in a rational way.

But this I do know, there are questions still unanswered about the shroud that science has not addressed....and the foremost one to me is why is the image on the shroud a negative image?
The concept of an negative image was not even there until photogrophy..

But OK a counter point or two.
The shroud was not a common shroud of the time and era....it was the shroud of Joseph of Amaramathea who was a very wealthy person and would not have a common shroud.
Despite the fact that Rome occupied Israel they did have the Pax Romana...which was to allow the Jews to continue some political controle...so it is not hard for me to believe that Joseph of Amarathaea used his influence to have the body put in his tomb being that it was the Sabbath....and this is shown by Pilot offering to release one prisoner to the Jews.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #119
125. Get some theatrical makeup, Cover your face with it. Now
Edited on Sun Apr-04-10 09:27 PM by alfredo
lay a clean white sheet of muslin over it. Get a good impression. Lift it off and look at the transfer.


Do look up burial practices of early Jews.

Arabs dress their dead in a similar fashion. It make it easier to transport them to the grave.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zeemike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #125
127. And it would look nothing like a person
That happens when a three dimensional object is transfered to a two...so it had to have been painted as a negative.
And what is it that you see in that picture that contradicts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #127
134. The man who made it confessed. Around that time
there were a lot of fake religious items. People were trying to cash in on the pilgrims, a practice that still goes on.

If you remember, the Vatican did not see it as a true relic. Why wasn't there any mention of it before it was "discovered"?

Anyway if Christ died as said, he would not have been buried. His body would have been allowed to rot on the cross. His flesh would have been eaten by maggots, vultures and ravens. In time his bones would have separated from the flesh and fell to the ground. Maybe then the family could have collected the bones, if they could figure out which ones were his. Dogs and Hyenas would have scattered them all over the place.

Keeping the corpse on the cross prevented the family from giving the deceased a proper religious burial. Insult to injury.

One example of recent fakery is the fake amber that started appearing after the movie Jurassic Park. If there's a dollar to be made, there will be a huckster trying to make a quick buck.

In Ethiopia they still celebrate the finding of the true cross by Queen Helena. I saw the event in Asmara. The float holding St Helena (a pretty young Hamasein girl) had a cross that would go up and down. It had light bulbs! I have photos of the event somewhere and will post them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zeemike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #134
136. Rome was not trying to insult the Jews...
And though they could be brutal to common criminals they did not make it a rule that all bodies rotted on the cross.
And it was obvious from the story that Pilot did not think Jesus a common criminal and would have given some deference to a powerful person asking a favor....they gave a lot of deference to the Jewish leaders....that was all part of the Pax Romano. Rome could not occupy all that territory with military force alone.

And there are a lot of conflicting stories about it....but that is what one would expect with something that is that old. especially considering the tremendous change in Christianity over that period of time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #136
138. How could it have appeared in 14th century Italy and
there be no mention of its existence for all those centuries? And why would it be of a configuration inconsistant with customs of 1st century Jerusalem?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #138
139. There are a couple of pictorial descriptions of it
from the Middle Ages & one from earlier than the Shroud has been carbon-dated to. Proof? no, but interesting to speculate on.

dg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #139
142. Speculation is fun, this one has been refuted for
six hundred years.

A chemist named Dr. Walter McCrone found vermillion, not blood on the hands and feet.

Bishop Pierre D'Arcis was the person who first exposed it as a fake. The artist confessed to the Bishop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #142
154. But how did he manage to create a 3D image on a flat surface? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #154
162. What do you mean by a 3D image on a flat surface?
When a person is put in his casket or burial clothes, do they fold the arms over the chest or do they place them over the genitals?

Try this:

Lay down on the floor on your back. Now cover your genitals with your hands without lifting your head and shoulders. Compare what you did with the image on the shroud.

Here is how the Romans attached the feet to the cross.

The legs were probably broken to prevent the person from supporting their weight with their legs. Of course not breaking the legs would prolong the asphyxiation.







Instead of toilet paper, a brine soaked sponge was used. That could have been what was reportedly offered to Jesus to slack his thirst. Of course that could have been partisan propaganda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #162
183. The "miracle" isn't the fact that 3D info is encoded in a 2D image.
Any standard photograph does that. Human beings are able to decipher these things naturally, as a matter of course.

The real surprising thing is that computer4s do it so poorly, and that people seem to be amazed by it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #183
185. I'm still amazed that people see that grotesque painting
and consider it a real Jewish burial shroud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #142
178. actually, it appears the artist confessed to his predecessor
who helpfully was dead when the bishop made this claim. seems with everyone going to see the shroud, no one was coming to see (and pay to see) the relics in bishop d'arcis' cathedral.

dg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zeemike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 06:54 AM
Response to Reply #138
151. Well lets look at it this way.
Say you are a christian in the first century and you have in your possession the shroud.
Do you think you would be showing it around when the Jews as well as the Romans were out to find you out and put you to death?
Any of these artifacts would have to be hidden. And remember it was over 300 years before Consiteen adopted Christianity.
How many artifacts exist of George Washington now exist and they are still finding things from that time that they did not know exists....And there was no attempt to wipe them out.
But I don't understand what inconsistencies you see in this with Jewish customs of the 1st century. Are you saying that they did not use burial shrouds?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #151
164. They swaddled the body. A separate cloth is used for the head.
Even if the body was put in a grave, it would have been taken out when the flesh leaves the bones. The bones are put into an ossuary. Chances are real good that his body was left to rot on the cross, as was the custom at the time. The crosses were in plain view of the road to drive home the message to those who defy the law. The practice of displaying the executed is widespread. Vlad The Impaler lined the road with his victims to warn any invader of what they could expect. Severed heads lined a city square in Keren Eritrea. It sent a powerful message to us as we drove by.



If by chance he survived, he would have probably escaped to Damascus. At that time Damascus was a place of exile from Roman rule. He probably died, his body eaten by vultures and other carrion eaters.

Swaddling the body makes transport to the burial ground a lot easier. The body was washed and covered in perfumes and spices for obvious reasons. The burial shrouds remain basically the same throughout the mideast.



The Zoroastrian used burial by exposure. To them it was proper to allow vultures to consume the flesh. The practice is mostly abandoned due to local laws. I think it still happens in India.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zeemike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #164
165. The body was put in a rich mans tomb.
And I imagine all the amenities that went with it.
And you are saying that they did not use a shroud on the body before wrapping it?...How would anyone know that?

But that is the problem I have with this whole thing....all kinds of assumptions are made to come to a conclusion which is then used as fact.
First the assumption that the Romans always carried out executions the same every time.
then the assumption that burial was always carried out in the common manner.
And that the cloth that was used was always common.
And so the conclusion is that it could not have happened the way it is described because of the assumptions and that becomes the fact.

And that is how ideology gets in the way of real scientific research.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #165
184. Why would they abandon Jewish burial customs? Jews are
not buried naked. They wear burial gowns called Tachrichim. That mean bind or enwrap. Those garments can also be called a shroud.

As I said in another post, the Romans let the bodies rot on the cross. Unless the family got past the guards and stole the body, that was his final resting place.

Ideology got in the way when the researchers found the "blood" consisted of red Ochre and Vermillion. Ideology got in the way when it was pointed out that the arms are freakishly long.

Try to cover your genitals as you are flat on your back. Be sure to cock your elbows as in the shroud.


BTW, have you ever seen a person buried with their hands over their junk?


When Hercules died, a storm cloud passed by. There was a clap of thunder and he was carried up into heaven.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zeemike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #184
189. And is not a part of that burial gown a strip of cloth that covers the
Front and back before they are bound?
And in that binding is not the arms pulled in tight to the body?
And where else would the hands be when bound?....not on the sides for sure.

The problem I have with all of this is that it talks about things we cannot possibly know about...no matter how much we study artifacts we can never say we know exactly what customs were 2000 years ago.
We have very little evidence we have of that time that has survived,,,,very little.
Most likely Pilot wrote this all down and sent it to Rome...and there was lots of that stuff that was produced, but practically none of it exists today. And you cannot say you know something abut a whole civilization by finding a few scraps of information.

That is why I bristle when someone says the weave of the cloth proves it is a fake because that weave was not invented till later...Well that weave may well have existed in Persia hundreds of years before, and Joesph of Aramathaya may have brought it from merchants that came their through Baghdad.
the truth is that we DON"T know these things. and science should not be making guesses based on scant evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #189
190. We do know the religious laws of the time. We know a lot
about Roman law. We have remains of crucifixion victims.

Anyway, it really doesn't matter because the person who painted the shroud confessed.

All he wanted to do was soak the pilgrims.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sybylla Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #189
203. "science should not be making guesses based on scant evidence"
Science doesn't. It leaves that to religion. You say that we cannot "know exactly what customs were 2000 years ago." And yet we've built whole religions around something by your very claim we can't "know exactly" because it happened 2000 years ago.

Really. It doesn't take a "scientist" to know what life was like 2000 years ago. The Romans had been a very literate people for several thousand years before the time of Christ, as were the Greeks, the Hebrews, and many other cultures in the area. Do you really think it so impossible to paint a complete picture of life in time of Christ anywhere in the vicinity of the Mediterranean? That's just simple research through all the literature of the times before, during and after.

Why do Christians find it so hard to believe and embrace their faith if they don't have trumped up relics to hold on to like a pacifier? I think that's a better question. As a believer in any religion, I would want to be open to the truth, to investigating the frauds who try to use my faith to manipulate me and expose them. The Judeo-Christian God has warned against believing in false idols, yet Christians cling to these false idols (like the shroud) as though their afterlife depends on it, rather than clinging to the real virtues of their faith.

Christianity isn't about the shroud. It's about Jesus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zeemike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #203
205. And how much of the tones of documents survived.
Perhaps .0001%...and based on that you can tell me all about it?...You cannot paint a complete picture with such scant evidence.
In order for documents to survive that amount of time they ether had to be copied or preserved careful because the media they were on is corrupted with time.

What did survive was mostly inscription in stone or other media....What do you think the future could learn from digging up our monuments and reading the inscriptions?
How much of our media we have now would survive 2000 years?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salguine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #14
95. Jesus did NOT wear a weave! YOU TAKE THAT BACK!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDebbieDee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #95
102. Lol !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrs_p Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #95
124. really laughing out loud
:rofl:

do we still have DUZYs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugabear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #4
27. Facts do not matter to those who cling to "faith"
Believers are willing to dismiss any factual evidence that doesn't fit with their beliefs. They'll claim that those studies are inconclusive, or that the researchers have anti-religious biases, etc. You simply cannot argue or reason with someone who really wants to believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #4
29. How was it done?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #29
44. It wasn't made by wrapping a dead body with that cloth, that's for sure.
Think about the sort of image you get from a cylindrical projection of a sphere.



And why is the head on the Shroud so much larger & more detailed when compared to the rest of the body?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #44
51. OK. But forgery usually means it was actually forged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zeemike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #44
78. you probably should have watched that program
It explained that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #78
104. Let me guess - it was a "miracle", right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zeemike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #104
120. One man's miracle is another mans enigmatic phenomenon.
I am not willing to believe that it is imposable to have happened the way it is described.
And i am not afraid of being ridiculed for having a truly open mind about everything....but then I KNOW I don't know everything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 05:30 AM
Response to Reply #120
150. One man's venerated relic is another man's con job.
It becomes a problem when the Church knows it's a fake & still separates people from their money over it.

Christs message isn't to be found in a dirty bedsheet that some forger drew a picture on 800 yrs ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demosincebirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #4
30. Could be, but what a supernatural mind he must have had for that time...
scientist, now a days, can't figure out how it was done. So how can someone say it is a fake? Its interesting, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #30
58. ALL the scientists who examined it said so - PAINT PIGMENTS and cloth made in 1000 AD or so...
Even the Vatican says it's a fake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demosincebirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #58
63. You are totally wrong. You just made that up. Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #63
75. Bullshit my "friend" - ALL the scientists who examined it PROVED it to be a FAKE.
Look it up - even the Vatican said so.

The coloring was PAINT PIGMENT.

It's a FACT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demosincebirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #75
131. give me a reputable link that shows that the Vatican says its fake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 02:42 AM
Response to Reply #131
143. The Vatican. Always reliable when it comes to the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #63
98. Red ochre and vermillion, in a collagen tempera medium...
http://mcri.org/home/section/63-64/the-shroud-of-turin

According to Dr. Walter McCrone and his colleagues, the 3+ by 14+ foot cloth depicting Christs crucified body is an inspired painting produced by a Medieval artist just before its first appearance in recorded history in 1356.

The faint sepia image is made up of billions of submicron pigment particles (red ochre and vermilion) in a collagen tempera medium. The pigments red ochre and vermilion with the collagen tempera medium was a common paint composition during the 14th century; before which, no one had ever heard of the Shroud.


Sorry, TankLV is totally right.

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #58
113. Actually, the Vatican hasn't said yay or nay
Edited on Sun Apr-04-10 07:40 PM by WolverineDG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Vatican_po...

in particular: Pope John Paul II stated in 1998 that:<55>: "Since we're not dealing with a matter of faith, the church can't pronounce itself on such questions. It entrusts to scientists the tasks of continuing to investigate, to reach adequate answers to the questions connected to this Shroud." Pope John Paul II showed himself to be deeply moved by the image of the Shroud and arranged for public showings in 1998 and 2000. In his address at the Turin Cathedral on Sunday May 24, 1998 (the occasion of the 100th year of Secondo Pia's May 28, 1898 photograph), he said:<56> "The Shroud is an image of God's love as well as of human sin ... The imprint left by the tortured body of the Crucified One, which attests to the tremendous human capacity for causing pain and death to one's fellow man, stands as an icon of the suffering of the innocent in every age." In 2000, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that the Shroud of Turin is ″a truly mysterious image, which no human artistry was capable of producing. In some inexplicable way, it appeared imprinted upon cloth and claimed to show the true face of Christ, the crucified and risen Lord."<57>

dg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #58
207. so all the scientists in the documentary were lying?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 02:54 AM
Response to Reply #30
145. Not to be antagonistic, but WTF?
This has been proven a fake. The manner in which it was done is known. The only mystery surrounding this antiquity is how so many people can so studiously avoid hearing/reading/seeing the answers year after year after year.

Jeez! Sorry, it isn't real, move on.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zeemike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #4
71. And all test that lend doubt to that is not objective.
Kind of like what the freeper think about any facts that do not support their ideology.....all liberal bias.
I hate when science turns itself into an ideology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
awoke_in_2003 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
130. and every self-respecting church
had their own version of a shroud or some other "relic"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChoppinBroccoli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #4
137. I Remember This Being Put To Bed Like A Decade Ago
Scientists carbon-dated the material to the Middle Ages. In addition, they found that the man's eyes had been covered with coins, and they could actually read the markings on the coins. And guess what? The COINS were from the Middle Ages as well.

Yet another big hoax perpetrated on the world in the name of religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Today Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
5. I can't remember where I saw it, some special probably 5-10 years ago,
and tests were done on actual human faces and they found that the pattern of residue on the cloths they used looked nothing like the image on the supposed Shroud due to the way the cloth settled on the contours of an average face, apparently the only way that image could be produced as seen would be 2D portraiture of some sort. I quit paying attention after that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
6. I thought that there was a scientific conclusion made that the shroud
is no more than a thousand years old, which would make it a thousand years later than Christ's birth.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I think there was a carbon-dating study that produced that result
but it set off a long and still-unresolved controversy about the method.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. Well they discussed that
I'm not sure I buy their flimsy hypothesis, which is that the sample that was subject to the C14 tests was a corner that was repeatedly subjected to handling, meaning, I supposed, that it had (what? been contaminated with "newer" carbon sources?) I've forgotten how C14 testing is done, but my first thought is that the amount of material from the cloth would be such a massive percentage of the sample relative to any hand oils (etc) that might have been left behind.

Or maybe I missed the point altogether.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #12
28. I think the test was from the corner singed by fire
and I dimly remember a scientific argument made by some that advanced a theory on why the results may have been contaminated. I seem to recall seeing a show where some scientists reexamined the data, and concluding that more modern methods of testing now might be able to resolve the question more definatively. Sorry, my memory is fuzzy. But even those who are sure it is a thousand year forgery are baffled by what technique could have created it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cayanne Donating Member (682 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #28
106. Contaminates? also repaired
The corner that was tested had been reweaved and repaired. Thus the fibers were shown to be from a later date 1250 -1350 or something such as that. The shroud needs to be carbon dated again from areas that haven't been touched as much as the corners and haven't contaminated by touch, fire and water damage. Of course, this will mar the shroud so it probably won't be re tested and time soon until technology can advance to where the material can be tested as a whole and not from a piece.
I thought it was fascinating how they came to put the face and body in 3 dimensional.

As far as I understand, there is Zero pigment of any kind on the image other than human blood. I've been following the shroud for years although I'm not a Christian, just curious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #106
111. A patch. Right, that was it. Thanks
I'm remembering more aboout that show now. I think one of the scientists who originally concluded it was a fraud due to carbon testing was contacted by another one with an alternative explanation and they colaborated on a reassesment and concluded that the earlier test was in fact inconclusive, and further tests as you describe would be needed in order to be definitive.

I hadn't heard of the conclusion by some scientists that paint figments were the cause of the image, which is linked to on this thread. The ones I was aware of remained perplexed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
70. It's the History Channel; they would *NEVER* piss off the majority of their audience...
Edited on Sun Apr-04-10 05:09 PM by Tesha
by unambiguously saying "You know all that Jewish and Christian
Biblical History? Well, 99% of it was made up ex-post-facto to
convince the rubes. No Genesis, no flood, magic commanding
tablets, no rising-from-the-dead. And all that stuff John saw
in the last chapter? 'Shrooms!"

So they speak as though there's still some sort of mystery extant
about all this stuff. "Is the Carbon-14 dating correct? Or is the
difficulty simply a reflection of God's mysterious power?"

Essentially all religion is fiction. But don't you dare say that on
American commercial media.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #6
23. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
7. Two microfibers is pretty thin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
21. Was that the depth of the image?
They did show that it was very superficial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. Yes. They said if you shaved it with a razor the entire image would disappear.
It's not paint, dye or any other liquid which would be deeper.

No endorsement as authentic but no explanation as to how it was done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demosincebirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #26
33. Some form of radiation?
Edited on Sun Apr-04-10 03:57 PM by demosincebirth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #33
41. I just heard them mention light.
The problem is, what would be the source of such light or radiation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demosincebirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. Can't say it here, it'll start a war!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #41
45. Mmmm, probably similar to when that guy said "Let there be light" or something n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #41
48. at the time it was made, the only thing that comes to mind is a lightning strike.
Who knows what technological advances lone scientists made in their labs back then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #48
53. Now *that* is an interesting comment
I hadn't even thought about lightning because I knew that the body was in a crypt.

HOWEVER, I recently read a book about some hikers on Half Dome in Yosemite (which gets hit by lightning very frequently) who got hit by lightning--while they were taking cover in a cave in the rocks! Same situation, except for the stone that would have covered the crypt entrance.

I know there's a big deal made about the stone having been rolled away from the entrance. I wonder if that carries more significance than traditionally thought?

Nice new twist to think about

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cayanne Donating Member (682 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #41
108. Becoming a God
Through the resurrection. At one time it was believed that Leonardo Da Vinci may have done it via reverse negative in one of his experiments. That has now been discounted. No one has been able to figure out how it got there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #26
59. WRONG! It has been PROVEN to be PAINT already!!!
and it's more than the few microns thick - the whole thing is BULLSHIT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #59
66. Why, thank you for providing a link to accompany your exclamation points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #66
68. exclamation points are not proof unless there's also some 11's in the mix
and, shhh, don't tell anyone, but it's been shown that there was no paint on the Shroud of Turin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Painting

dg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #68
77. Wrong. Stop spreading the LIES.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #77
89. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #77
133. Not according to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Painting

Now, please back yourself up with links, as has been requested several times.

dg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 02:50 AM
Response to Reply #133
144. Oh, yeah, Wikipedia. Truly a definitive source for truth. Just like the Vatican.
Here's a larger question: Why would "God"-- who, we're constantly told, is almost obsessive-compulsive when it comes to NOT offering definitive scientific proof of "his" existence- leave behind a photo-mojo of this particular event, when even the factual, historical evidence for the existence of Jesus in the first place is nothing if not scant, much less wholly disputable?


http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_nojesus.ht...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #144
155. God does not have to respond to childish demands for command performances
especially those made by malcontents who wouldn't believe it anyway?

dg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #155
163. "Malcontents"? Whatever. Tell it to Giordano Bruno.
Anyway, the thing is a fake. If you want to hang your belief on something, I'd suggest not doing it on that particular piece of cloth.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #163
180. Jump to conclusions much?
I never said the Shroud is what it is purported to be. I've said it's fascinating & no one has ever shown that it is genuine or fake.

dg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #77
206. RAR!!11!!1!!!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 04:28 AM
Response to Reply #68
147. You probably don't want to use wiki as a source for any religious debates.
There is an ongoing effort to push their agenda in all of these public input resources by the scary-crazy people.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #147
156. well, it's a starting point
and refuted everything this other person was saying.

dg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #156
173. That's the point, it doesn't. If you actually read the cites the crazy people used,
you'll see that the studies say just the opposite. It is pigment, it was made in the 14th century, and the technique used is both well-known and has been demonstrated.

That's the problem with the Wikipedia, it is more a gauge of how many people want to push one view or another than a collection of facts.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #173
174. and then there are studies that show it's not paint
which only tells me that no one can say for sure it's a fake or legit. I still find it all fascinating.

dg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #174
182. No, there aren't. At least none from any reputable source. You didn't read the citation, did you? n/...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #182
193. I saw the show
and they couldn't find any paint on there. Did you watch the show?

dg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #193
199. No, read the study. There's a link to it upthread. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 06:54 AM
Response to Reply #199
201. Sorry, not talking to someone who didn't watch the show nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #66
100. Red ochre and vermillion in a collagen tempera medium...
http://mcri.org/home/section/63-64/the-shroud-of-turin

According to Dr. Walter McCrone and his colleagues, the 3+ by 14+ foot cloth depicting Christs crucified body is an inspired painting produced by a Medieval artist just before its first appearance in recorded history in 1356.

The faint sepia image is made up of billions of submicron pigment particles (red ochre and vermilion) in a collagen tempera medium. The pigments red ochre and vermilion with the collagen tempera medium was a common paint composition during the 14th century; before which, no one had ever heard of the Shroud.


Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #100
112. That conclusion appears to be disputed.
Two later additions to the STURP team, John Heller and Alan Adler, published their own peer-reviewed analysis concluding that the stains were blood. (Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler, "Blood on the Shroud of Turin", Applied Optics, 19:2742-4, 1980; Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler, "A Chemical Investigation on the Shroud of Turin", Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal 81-103, 1981) According to Shroud skeptic Joe Nickell, neither Heller nor Adler was a forensic serologist or a pigment expert. Nickell adds that, "at the 1983 conference of the International Association for Identification, forensic analyst John E Fischer explained how results similar to theirs could be obtained from tempera paint."<1> McCrone adhered to his opinion that comparison of microscopic images showed that the stain on the Shroud was not blood.<2>

STURP members also disputed McCrone's similar conclusion that the Shroud image was painted. They contended (also in peer-reviewed papers) that physical analyses excluded the presence of pigments in sufficient quantities to be accountable for the image. (For a summary of STURP studies see L.A. Schwalbe, R.N. Rogers, Analytica Chimica Acta 135, 3-49, 1982.)

McCrone resigned from the STURP team in June 1980. In McCrone's words, he was "drummed out" of STURP. Heller, however, stated that McCrone resigned after being "insulted" by the STURP's reviewers' conclusion that the papers McCrone submitted to be vetted for publication contained data that were "misrepresented", observations that were "highly questionable", and conclusions that were "pontifications" rather than "scientific logic" (Heller, Report on the Shroud of Turin, p. 184).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_McCrone
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cayanne Donating Member (682 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #59
110. No it has not nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piratefish08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #59
152. but don't let that stand in the way of selling a tv show to people who desperately
need some sort of physical confirmation of their beliefs...........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theophilus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
10. Saw an interesting one recently suggesting Da Vinci did it with a
primitive camera and photo type chemicals. Interesting. He was a card about things like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Today Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. That's the one I saw, it also mentioned IIRC that the human face wouldn't
look like the shroud because contours would cause much more distortion of the image.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. I didn't see that but it sounds fascinating
However, the whole point of this show was the 3D rendered image. Apparently, the image contained topographical data such that when they applied the appropriate algorithms (sounds like what you do when you know the answer and just need to find the path to it... but I digress), they were able to produce a 3D version that was accurate.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. The body proportions are all wrong.
Da Vinci probably would have done a better job. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. I did notice that, plus I noticed that they ignored it, too n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cayanne Donating Member (682 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #19
109. No, the distortions were from the body being bound up
This caused the legs to be straight and the arms to be extended. The shroud was bound by a piece of cloth wrapped around the body to keep it in place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #16
35. For a mortal, of course. But Jesus was not just another mortal
Edited on Sun Apr-04-10 04:01 PM by kenny blankenship
the fact that the proportions of the Shroud of Turin are grotesquely "off" for a human face/body just confirms its Divine origin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. Good point
The thing I noticed was the length of his arms, but then, a guy who "has the whole world in his hands" probably has some exceptionally long arms.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #39
49. if it is an image taken via light source, perhaps distortion due to angle while subject moved?
Edited on Sun Apr-04-10 04:17 PM by KittyWampus
When I take close-up photos for Ebay sometimes proportions end up weird and I have to get the shot from a few inches further back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Caretha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #39
84. There is a theory
that the arms are the correct length & the hands would cover the genitial if the upper body & head were resting on some sort of support like a pillow. A pillow would not be used to support a corpse, but would be used to support a man that wasn't dead. Studies have been done showing that if it that were the case, the body & head proportion would be valid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beartracks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #35
60. But his mortal body WAS just another mortal body.
Jesus' divinity was not revealed physically. His human, mortal body would've been just like anyone else's.

-------------------
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #60
67. That's not quite true. At the instant of his resurrection, his body became divine
He even ascended into heaven *with* that body, so no, it was not the same after the resurrection.

And I think that's the point. If the image was produced at the instant of the resurrection, there's no telling how it might have been physically transformed. Clearly it was grossly transformed from dead to living, so who knows how else it changed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beartracks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #67
72. OK. Good point. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Onceuponalife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #67
86. Pics or it didn't happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #35
61. You forgot the "sarcasm" thingy...
It's already been PROVEN a FAKE with PAINT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #61
65. Sarcasm tags take all the fun out of it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Onceuponalife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #35
85. Yes, he was
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #35
141. He had extra long legs from all that Dino ridin'!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #16
122. But they're completely in line with western art at the time.
Edited on Sun Apr-04-10 09:09 PM by Marr
I can't believe anyone still thinks the thing might be authentic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
13. Yes and I was impressed with the technology and creativity that will be followed by many other
research groups.

I saw nothing in the results producing the face that supported the authenticity of the shroud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
15. It's been carbon dated to the middle ages.
The only reason it will "probably never be resolved" is because some people will never accept any amount of scientific data that goes contrary to their preconceived beliefs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
20. Carbon dating has it only going back to the middle ages. This was solved several years
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theophilus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
22. Here's a link to the Da Vinci thingy.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #22
46. Thanks, will check it out
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
finecraft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
25. Whether it is the image of Jesus or not, I'm fascinated
by the fact that even if it is "just" 1,000 years old, nobody has been able to figure out how the image was made. Someone in antiquity was able to produce an object that modern science cannot determine the process by which it was made. Remarkable and fascinating to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #25
34. Me too, That's where I'm coming from.
None of the glib answers satisfy me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eShirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #25
52. but was it serendipity or did they know what they were doing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #25
135. I found it very fascinating, myself.
We used to have holy cards of that image. I remember just looking at it and looking at it and trying to analyze it in my 11-year-old brain. It is HUGE fun to think about, when you suspend all logic. I love playing "what if" with stuff like this. Always have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #25
188. Ditto. Didn't watch the show, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
31. Two different carbon datings have shown that the shroud is not old enough
to have been around when Christ was supposed to have been born, killed on the cross or whatever. But these FAITHFUL still keep trying to get the evidence to fit their version of what the shroud is supposed to be.

If it is not old enough how in the world could it ever be the shroud. But just because it isn't possible, doesn't make the believers accept the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. I can tell you what the "faithful" probably think
Carbon dating is a technique that is easily manipulated by either 1) God or 2) Satan.

When God does it, it's to reinforce by testing the faith of the faithful.

When Satan does it, it's to try and fool the faithful.

But make no mistake, *any* scientific results can be manipulated by those two.

And thus the disrespect for the whole scientific process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Onceuponalife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #36
88. But isn't God also trying to fool the faithful?
So is there really a difference between God and Satan?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #88
92. Well, considering that I think God is bipolar...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
finecraft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
37. The show's just coming on again on the History Channel n/t
Edited on Sun Apr-04-10 04:02 PM by finecraft
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. Without HC what would anyone know about Atlantis, or flying saucers or the Shroud of Turin?
Edited on Sun Apr-04-10 04:14 PM by kenny blankenship
Since we have the History Channel and its many fine academic offerings and A&E channel's in-depth journalism on famous murder cases, as well as the Discovery Channel's excellent series on jobs that involve handling feces or toxic chemicals, the need for govt. funded "public broadcasting" has withered away. The market provided! Republicans were absolutely right about getting rid of govt-run public television back in the nineties, just as Democrats are right about not needing publicly run insurance now in the noughties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #42
47. I knew plenty about all of those things before HC
I learned it from this other mysterious source called BOOKS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
csziggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #42
57. Leonard Nimoy told me about them on "In Search Of"
But before that I had read about them in books as part of my Folklore classes for my Anthropology degree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AzNick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
40. Like the "Face on Mars" and Nostradamus' "predictions"
Debunked over and over but they keep bringing it back, as plenty of folks ignore it was debunked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #40
50. False analogies
While I might agree with the conclusions you make, it's not appropriate (logically) to make it from false analogies.

X and Y are false
A shares some aspects with X and Y, therefore A is false
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
54. Yep I LOVED the WHITE nordic Jesus that emerged
out of the images.

Now if they had a Semite on it I'd go ok at least they made an effort

By the way, the C=14 has not been debunked as they claim. IT IS NOT 2000 years old.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. Nordic? I didn't get that n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #54
91. they haven't done the reveal yet
but he's not looking Nordic to me either.

dg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
56. Yes - and I was agast - what they try to spew is 180 degrees opposite from the truth.
The shroud is a FAKE.

The material was proven to be from somewhere around 1000 to 1300 AD and the coloring is from PAINT PIGMENT!!!

The program was disgusting...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
62. It's interesting so far
Doesn't matter to me if it's authentic or not. I'm fascinated in how you go about figuring out how it was done. (And it's not a paint job)

dg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DawgHouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
69. Seems that some people can't figure out WHY someone would make a fake.
Since they can't figure out WHY someone would make a fake, their conclusion is it must be real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #69
74. In the Middle Ages, all Cathredals needed a religious relic
The fake relic business boomed in the Middle Ages. Bones of saints, Splinters from the one true cross, etc. etc. etc.

All phony.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. Especially that skull of John the Baptist when he was 12 years old. *THAT* was great one. (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #74
81. Exactly - big tourist attractions to go along with the next BIG CATHEDRAL.,
That's why all the need for "relics"...bones were not exactly plentiful...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #81
82. And Turin had a huge draw with the Shroud of Christ.
You could even see the image of Christ in the shroud.

A truly excellent phony religious relic. Masterfully done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #82
103. Chartres had the Holy Foreskin of Jesus. Now that's a draw.
SO big a draw that other cathedral cities claimed THEY had the Holy Foreskin. There was even a second church in the same diocese of Chartres that claimed that IT had the Holy Foreskin.

This is a matter of history. Some people, probably ignorant of history of any other country but their own find, it shocking and literally incredible.

From the article Holy Prepuce - Wikipedia
Foreskin relics were recorded in Europe beginning during the Middle Ages. The earliest recorded sighting came on December 25, 800, when Charlemagne gave the relic to Pope Leo III, when the latter crowned the former Emperor. Charlemagne claimed that it had been brought to him by an angel while he prayed at the Holy Sepulchre, although a more prosaic report says it was a wedding gift from the Byzantine Empress Irene. The Pope placed it into the Sanctum sanctorum in the Lateran basilica in Rome with other relics.<3>

Per the author David Farley, "Depending on what you read, there were eight, twelve, fourteen, or even 18 different holy foreskins in various European towns during the Middle Ages."<4> In addition to the Holy Foreskin in Rome, other churches' and cities' claiming to have the relic during the Middle Ages included the Cathedral of Le Puy-en-Velay; Santiago de Compostela; the city of Antwerp; Coulombs in the diocese of Chartres, France as well as Chartres; and churches in Besanon, Metz, Hildesheim, Charroux, Conques, Langres, Antwerp, Fcamp, Puy-en-Velay, two in Auvergne, and Calcata, Italy. Agnes Blannbekin in Vienna claimed one.<4>

(snip!)



How can all these competing claims be true? The solution to this mystery is not fit for the debased minds of this age! Holy Mother Church has forbidden all discussion of the Holy Prepuce and the dispute over which claim is true upon pain of excommunication since 1900. However there is a way that comports with the earthly laws of geometric solids, that all the various historic claims to the Holy Foreskin could be truthful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TorchTheWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 03:37 AM
Response to Reply #103
146. there were also many claimed Jesus shrouds
There's a reason the Shroud of Turin is identified as such - to distinguish it from all the OTHER shrouds claimed to be the one Jesus was wrapped in.

This whole argument is so damn silly. Of COURSE the thing is a fake, and it hardly surprises me that it dates to the middle ages... all sorts of fake holy relics were manufactured at that time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #74
179. "I seek the Holy Grail!"
King Arthur: Go and tell your master that we have been charged by God with a sacred quest. If he will give us food and shelter for the night, he can join us in our quest for the Holy Grail.
French Soldier: Well, I'll ask him, but I don't think he will be very keen. Uh, he's already got one, you see.
King Arthur: What?
Sir Galahad: He said they've already got one!
King Arthur: Are you sure he's got one?
French Soldier: Oh yes, it's very nice!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #69
90. raising money = good reason to create a fake relic
entire forests could be wiped out to make relics of the "True Cross." But the Shroud of Turin is interesting because they can't prove that it is the shroud that covered Jesus, but they can't prove what it actually is either.


dg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
79. I watched and read about it
I watched and read about it long enough to conclude, in my mind, that it is not supernatural.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vogonity Donating Member (283 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
80. Red Ochre
http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/as/mccrone.ht...

The red particles are found on the fibers of all image tapes and have varying degrees of hydration, color, and refractive index (from about 2.5 to 3.01). These properties are characteristic of the artist's earth pigment, red ochre4. Common worldwide, this pigment has been used by artists for at least 30,000 years. The highest refractive index particles are hydrous, crystalline, highly birefringent hematite with indices of 2.78 and 3.01. The iron earth pigments are hydrous iron oxide ranging in color and refractive index from yellow ochre to red ochre depending on their history. This raises the refractive index and may result in crystallization of hematite, anhydrous Fe2O3. A significant proportion of the Shroud red ochre is hematite, thus accounting for the observed birefringence of many of the individual particles. The composition of the Shroud red ochre was confirmed both by electron microprobe and by X-ray diffraction5. The XRD data were obtained on single red particle weighing only <1 ng of which possibly 0.2-0.3 ng is pigment. Less than one-half of the pigment aggregate particle is crystalline (hematite and vermilion), hence the lines in the XRD pattern are very spotty and difficult to measure. The agreement with known hematite data is, nonetheless, convincing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
83. Seemed like a load of bullshit to me. Try this: put some paint
on your face then wrap a sheet around your head, then take it off and see if it looks ANYTHING like the Shroud of Turin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
87. I watched it. It was pretty interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katmondoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
93. Rather than watch any so called news channel today
I watch the history channel, the discovery channel, and whatever else I can find to keep from hearing or seeing the a--holes on the news channels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
94. It's been playing this weekend ad nauseum
I'm sick of it. It's stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notadmblnd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
96. Well, I would imagine that with crucifixion being a common form of punishment for the Romans to use,
that it could be just about anybody. Even a Gentile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
97. The Shroud isn't Jesus...
it's much too young.

http://www.skepdic.com/shroud.html

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xicano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
101. I think the whole story is nothing more than myth.
Edited on Sun Apr-04-10 06:26 PM by Xicano
Not one word mentioning Jesus in the dead sea scrolls which were written in and around the time he was suppose to be in existence.

The likelihood of Pontius Pilate (a Roman procurator) letting a known insurgent against Romans (Barabbas) go because of a vote by the conquered citizens to kill a man (Jesus) who had not conspired against the Romans is way too dubious of a story to be truthful. That would be like us capturing Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan and letting the Afghanistans vote whether to let him go replacing him with someone who had done or conspired nothing against us. Not going to happen.

Other myths mirror too closely to the Jesus myth to be believable as something other than just another myth.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
105. Since it is quite obviously drawn the materials questions are weird to me
All the exacting work about the age of the fibers and such, but the image is so clearly a painting of the period looking little like an actual person in positive or negative... it might as well be a drawing of Little Orphan Annie.

It's a nice drawing/painting but it's a fricking drawing/painting.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #105
107. OK, let me try to clearly make one point that they asserted on the show
Edited on Sun Apr-04-10 07:09 PM by Duer 157099
The image has three dimensional data in it, unlike every other painting they examined using the same technique.

Which means, when you apply a certain algorithm to the image data, you can extract a valid 3D rendering of an image of a face.

Now, to put it in perspective: try scanning any painting that you know of and then try using a mathematical algorithm to produce a 3D rendering of that painting. Let us know the results.

Not saying it's supernatural, but saying that it's not as simple as many here keep suggesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vogonity Donating Member (283 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #107
114. Cover face in pigment. Press face into linen
http://www.skepdic.com/shroud.html

McCrone's theory is that "a male model was daubed with paint and wrapped in the sheet to create the shadowy figure of Jesus." The model was covered in red ochre, "a pigment found in earth and widely used in Italy during the Middle Ages, and pressed his forehead, cheekbones and other parts of his head and body on to the linen to create the image that exists today. Vermilion paint, made from mercuric sulphide, was then splashed onto the image's wrists, feet and body to represent blood."

No snark intended in this comment. The subject line may be a little more terse than I would like. You can cover a face with some kind of pigment like Red Ochre. You can then press the face into the linen which can result in the preservation of the 3D information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #114
115. And that image, created by paint on the face,
when you scan that image into a computer so that it's now digitized, you can apply a mathematical algorithm to that image and have a 3D version pop out?

Is that what you're saying? Can you provide a link that demonstrates this? Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #115
132. So you put stuff on your face

press it into the shroud, look at it, and add some touchup.

Presto! Negative face, 3D popout.

Of course, you could go with "jebus did it"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
117. The episode they did on Lincoln was pretty interesting too. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 08:05 PM
Response to Original message
118. No. Luckily, we don't bother to pay for cable.
The History Channel used to stick to history. Now it's all about entertainment woo BS.

Ugh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
126. Is it Easter already?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
devilgrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
128. I always thought the Shroud of Turin was Mick Fleetwood
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
140. If there's one thing more phony than the Shroud of Turin...
it's The History Channel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 04:41 AM
Response to Original message
149. FWIW, the temples of some of the Greek gods had devices by which
stone statues appeared to move and speak, and persons appeared to fly in from above and levitate. These old religions had many fervent believers for thousands of years who were just as ignorant as believers today, and just as ripe for a little dog and pony show---with a small contribution up front of course...and a few souvenirs for sale by the exit.

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 07:00 AM
Response to Original message
153. it would be a simple thing to stop the debate
have two separate teams do assessments on the date of the cloth independently. take samples from various portions of the cloth, both those that have been patched previously, and those that had not.

the samples can compare the weaves, as well.

if the date of the cloth is, as has been claimed, medieval, all other questions fall into place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bamacrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
157. I watched it, but even if it is a real shroud and all, how many men looked like that back then?
No DNA testing can be done so there is just an image that looks like what we think Jesus might have. It's interesting but about like his image in a chip or piece of toast. We don't have pictures from the time of his life or DNA so every image of a man from that general time frame could be called Jesus by us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
158. it was a facinating show, I wish some of the "experts" posting here had watched it
probably would make for a more substantive discussion.

I don't know what to think, but it was an interesting show.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #158
159. because these "experts" know that some forger back in the Middle Ages
simply scanned the image onto the linen. :eyes:

Say it is a forgery, whoever did it took the long way around the block to do it. So much so that the various groups that have studied it come to different conclusions. So you can't prove it is legit, but you can't prove it isn't either.

At any rate, it seems to me that those who want it to be a fake are a bit more belligerent in their attitudes & insistence that it is a fake than those who say they don't know, don't care, or believe that it is what it's claimed to be. Makes you wonder what they're afraid of.

dg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #159
161. when someone appears to have a hostile attitude,
Edited on Mon Apr-05-10 10:23 AM by G_j
I do tend to wonder why. The show offered plenty for a lively and interesting discussion.
Some making definitive statements about forgery, weave etc. did not say if they watched the show, which did address these things.
How well, I don't know. I really haven't followed the subject of the shroud in the past, but
it seems silly to react with hostility to something one hasn't actually seen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #158
168. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #168
169. just more snark
guess you missed where the OP asked if anyone had SEEN the program..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #169
170. No, I got that.
Did you see all the stuff about how the Shroud of Turin is clearly a forgery, and how the History Channel is full of shit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #170
191. yea, and some anonymous person on the internet told me that, without a link
did you see the Howard Zinn special on the History channel?
That there tells me that at least one good program was aired recently.



BTW, You are proof that I never use the ignore function.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #168
181. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Kalyke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
167. This thread's gotten into a tizzy for no reason.
It doesn't matter if the shroud is of Jesus, the Son of God, or Jesus, a great prophet who lived 2,000 years ago, but wasn't the Son of God; or some Jewish man who lived in the 14th century.

The shroud, or lack, thereof, does not prove that Jesus did not exist in some fashion.

It's not an either/or.

Jesus could have existed as the Son of God and no shroud was preserved.
Jesus could have existed as the Son of God and this was/is His shroud.

Jesus could have existed as a man and no shroud was preserved.
Jesus could have existed as a man and this was/is his shroud.

Jesus could have existed as the Son of God, but Leonardo da Vinci painted this shroud.
Jesus could have existed as a man, and, da Vinci still pained a shroud.

It's not and "if X=Y, then Z happens" hypothesis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
171. The Flat Earth Society strikes again!!
They fall for the same medieval trickery again and again, while the hucksters keep raking in the cash and laugh all the way to the bank. :D

Maybe I should start selling 'Christian keepsakes' too. :think:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #171
194. "...a tooth from the jaw of St. Jerome!"
Etc.

Love your phrase, "medieval trickery." That's it exactly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #194
200. "... curses, pardons, and selling the sexual favors of nuns."
"Moving on to relics, we've got shrouds from Turin, wine from the wedding at Cana, splinters from the cross, and of course there's stuff made by Jesus from his days in the carpentry shop." :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vca3rra69p8
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #200
210. Wul goddurn! I'll take half a dozen of everything!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spinbaby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
172. In a related story...
"Church authorities in Turin have condemned plans to sell 3-D spectacles to pilgrims viewing the Holy Shroud when it goes on display for six weeks after Easter."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timtom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
177. I know this must be fascinating to many people.
However, I have always felt the Shroud of Turin to be...I swear no pun is intended...immaterial. That is to say, it bears not on the core issues of faith.

I'm reminded of a Zen koan:

If you call this a stick, you affirm it.
If you call it not a stick, you negate it.
Beyond affirmation and negation, what is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RagAss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #177
186. ... a dependent arising.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
187. Possibly a new consideration - it's my understanding that
the image was discovered only when a 19th century photographer took a photograph and saw the image on the negative. The image itself is too faint to be seen as anything but scattered stains.

If the image was first seen in a photographic negative, then either the paint faded considerably or else the original forger anticipated that someday photography would be invented.

If I were a medieval forger going to all that trouble, I'd make damn sure people could see what I was forging!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #187
192. ^ That's true , Hedgehog ^ (And I did watch the program.)
Edited on Mon Apr-05-10 10:01 PM by Mimosa
Through the years I've noticed that some DUers disparage or ridicule Christian beliefs to a degree which wouldn't be tolerated if the topics were about Judaism, Buddhism or Islam. I twas brought up to be tolerant of the sincere faiths of all peoples. I don't need to judge them or believe I have a unique insight about truth which another person lacks.

The History Channel program about the Shroud was interesting. Long ago I'd read a book about the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_Edessa >Holy Mandylion of Edessa which supports what Hedgehog said. But before in the 8th century there were references to a cloth which was purported to be have an image of the face on the shroud, and may have been the shroud folded up. I'll look up a link.

http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-jesus-in-art.htm

About the Mandylion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_Edessa

Journalist Ian Wilson has put forward a theory<11> that the object venerated as the Mandylion from the sixth to the thirteenth centuries was in fact the Shroud of Turin, folded in four, and enclosed in an oblong frame so that only the face was visible.

For support, he refers to documents in the Vatican Library and the University of Leiden, Netherlands, which seem to suggest the presence of another image at Edessa. A tenth century codex, Codex Vossianus Latinus Q 69<12> found by Gino Zaninotto in the Vatican Library contains an eighth-century account saying that an imprint of Christ's whole body was left on a canvas kept in a church in Edessa: it quotes a man called Smera in Constantinople: "King Abgar received a cloth on which one can see not only a face but the whole body" (in Latin: faciei figuram sed totius corporis figuram cernere poteris).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #187
196. That's what has me wondering
if it is a forgery, someone went about it the hard way. Seems to me that if you were going to scam someone out of $ for a "relic," you'd find something a bit easier & cheaper to make, say a thorn from the Crown of Thorns, or a piece of the "True Cross." You wouldn't use top drawer linen & some artistic technique that no one had used before nor has used since.

dg

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
951-Riverside Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
198. Wake me up when they have a 3D image of noahs ark and Adam & Eve's remains
:sarcasm: :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salguine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 07:04 AM
Response to Original message
202. It was resolved. The shroud is a fake. It was conclusively debunked by Carbon-14 dating years ago.
Edited on Tue Apr-06-10 07:05 AM by salguine
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mr blur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
204. A scam claiming to prove the existence of a myth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stevenmarc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
208. The Shroud of Turin ........ The original ShamWow
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 19th 2014, 07:06 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC