Shroud of Turin Mystery Solved

image In the debate about the Shroud of Turin, perhaps the strongest argument that the pro-Shroud side had going for it was that no one could figure out how a medieval forger could have created such a thing. How could the forger have etched a three-dimensional photo-negative image of a crucified man onto a piece of linen? Nathan Wilson has pretty much demolished this pro-shroud argument by showing that it would have been quite easy for a medieval forger to have done this. All he (or she, but probably he) would have needed is some white paint, a large piece of glass, and a piece of linen. You paint a figure of a man on the glass, place the glass over the linen, and leave it out in the sun for a couple of days. The sun then bleaches the material, thereby transferring a three-dimensional photo-negative image of whatever was painted on the glass onto the linen. It's one of those things that seems so obvious when you think about it, and answers so many questions about the shroud, that it has to be the solution. And yet it's taken centuries for someone to figure it out. Wilson has a great (and quite detailed) article in Christianity Today explaining how he went about solving the mystery. There's also a shorter article about Wilson's 'shadow shroud' on discovery.com. Finally, check out Wilson's website: shadowshroud.com. The thumbnail shows a shroud-of-turin replica that Wilson created using his method.

Religion

Posted on Fri Mar 11, 2005



Comments

seriously, decomposition of the shroud material is obviously based on storage conditions... ancient linens are found in the sands of the Nazca Plains, fully intact
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Sat Mar 12, 2005  at  03:51 PM
I'm no expert on The Shroud (dar), so I don't know what to believe. But, I welcome fresh theories or insight into what's claimed to be the cloth of Christ... doesn't hurt.
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Sat Mar 12, 2005  at  03:55 PM
So, you're a true believer, with doubts. In answer to your first question (minus the question mark), the history of relic forgeries throughout the Middle Ages is infamous, and covered here at the Museum quite extensively. Alex doesn't miss much. In answer to your second question; the atmosphere of the Roman catacombs is an ideal place to preserve quality linen for centuries. While the shrouded body decays, the fluids dry up so thoroughly and quickly, that the cloth is in no further danger of deterioration without the invasion of humidity from outside. This property can be easily continued thru relatively humidity-free encasement, as the Shroud of Turin has been preserved in for many more modern centuries. And lastly, the similarity of your last statement regarding the Crusaders to that involved with the subject of the search for the Holy Grail is remarkable. Guess "someone's" been paying attention in class.
Posted by stork  on  Sat Mar 12, 2005  at  04:14 PM
Sorry, Hairy. I was responding to Jared's post, just took a while. Drive on, dude.
Posted by stork  on  Sat Mar 12, 2005  at  04:16 PM
stork said:

"Sorry, Anne N, but you'll never get me to say that the resurrection of Jesus Christ would actually qualify as the biggest hoax in all of history. I could easily be assassinated for saying that, although it's probably true. So I'm not. But the Shroud of Turin is less of a holy object than WE are, and it deserves to be finally debunked."

Huh? What are you trying to say here? I'm not following you.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Sat Mar 12, 2005  at  06:00 PM
There was a book published about 25 years ago or so on the Shroud, entitled strangely enough THE SHROUD OF TURIN. I've been looking for my copy but I can't find it. So, I will sumerize the book as best as I can remember.

The Shroud first appeared, as the Shroud, in 1358 in a display by an impoverished French knight. After some legal hassels and the family ending without heirs, it became the property of the cathedral of Turin where it has stayed to this day. Prior to that there is no known evidence of the Shroud. The author however, believes it was known under another name - Veronica's Scarf or Veronica's Handkerchief; this being the cloth that Veronica used to wipe the face of Jesus while on his way to be crucified. According to legend his face appeared on the cloth. It travelled to Constantinople and was lost during the sack of the 4th Crusade. The above mentioned knight had an uncle who was there at the time and later became a Templar. When the Templars were supressed, one of the charges was that they worshiped the image of a man on a cloth, or a demon on a cloth or something similar. Not all of the Templar treasures were found when they were surpressed.
The author presented a case that if the Shroud was indeed the burial cloth, after the Ressurection, the followers of Jesus would have wanted nothing to do with it, since being devout Jews touching it made them ritually unclean. It went north to a non-Jewish Christian community and later to Constantinople where it was stolen by the Crusaders of the 4th Crusade.

The crusaders were kicked out of Palestine long before the Shroud was displayed, so there is no way for a forger to have gotten into the area and robbed a tomb of a 1st centruy burial cloth. The pattern of welts on the back and sides match the Roman whip, the design of which was lost after the fall of the Western Empire. The hands and feet show signs of being bound in the manner common to 1st century Palestine and the head has a hairstyle also common to that era and area. The bloodstains are consistent with crucifition where the torso raises and lowers as the person tries to breathe and gets tired. The image is not flat as one might think, it is consistent with a burst of energy from a body with the cloth wrapped against the body, with the spaces proper for where the cloth did not touch the body.

All in all, the author presents a great deal of evidence against a forgery. The book is out of print, but I know that copies are still floating around.
Posted by Christopher Cole  on  Sat Mar 12, 2005  at  07:00 PM
Okay, I'm definately NOT picking sides here (I already did that, remember?), I just would like Christopher to clarify a few things from his post.

"Not all of the Templar treasures were found when they were surpressed." - And this statement is based on what? Do you have knowledge of lost treasure only you are privy to?

"The pattern of welts on the back and sides match the Roman whip, the design of which was lost after the fall of the Western Empire." - So, if the design was lost, how can it be claimed that these patterns match it?

"The bloodstains are consistent with crucifition where the torso raises and lowers as the person tries to breathe and gets tired." - But you say it is his burial shroud, not his shroud while he was still "on the cross". I'm not sure I understand what his breathing while crucified has to do with the blood patterns while back on terra firma. Please explain.

"The image is not flat as one might think, it is consistent with a burst of energy from a body with the cloth wrapped against the body" - Did I miss the burst-of-energy-from-a-body page in the textbook? What do you mean?

"I know that copies are still floating around." Literally? Just kidding, took it out of context for the humour only.
Posted by Rod  on  Sat Mar 12, 2005  at  11:56 PM
It doesn't belong to Christ for the simple fact that He wouldn't have left something behind to be an idol. This is why His actual birth date is not known. Joseph & Mary travelled to Bethlehem after the harvest...

But...the death is a specific time (Passover), b/c that's the part of the story Christ thought was significant. It doesn't matter if it's real or not (personally, I think not).
Posted by Maegan  on  Sun Mar 13, 2005  at  05:09 AM
Oh, sorry, CMG; just forgot my salutations for a second. All Blessings, - The Pope
Posted by stork  on  Sun Mar 13, 2005  at  08:33 PM
stork said:

"Oh, sorry, CMG; just forgot my salutations for a second. All Blessings, - The Pope"

Oh, well, THAT clears it up for me! Now I see EVERYTHING.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Mon Mar 14, 2005  at  01:21 AM
Most of the Shroud of Turin doubters have long been saying that it was in reality a painting of one sort or another, so I'm not sure this new study adds a lot to the debate.
No amount of evidence will convince the true believers that this isn't the true shroud of Christ, even though, as a couple of people have already pointed out here, the Bible accounts of the Resurrection actually contradict the Shroud legend.
Posted by Big Gary C  on  Mon Mar 14, 2005  at  01:53 AM
The cloth that would have covered the face would have been removed prior to burial. It was a sort of napkin used to catch blood while a victim was still nailed to the cross.(I forget the technical name) It's presence in the tomb would likely have been separate from the body in the first place.

Roman whips are known to us now but probably not to a medeival forger because of discoveries made since medeival times.

And actually, I don't think the man in the shroud would have had a hairstyle in keeping with the norm of the time. Most Jews would have kept their hair shorter.
Posted by Andrew J  on  Mon Mar 14, 2005  at  07:31 AM
Here's another explanation of the creation of the shroud that I've always been fond of:

There continues to be controversy over whether the image on the Shroud of Turin is the genuine image of Christ, produced by some supernatural process at the instant of his death, or whether it is a medieval forgery.

Radiocarbon tests completed in 1988 appeared to show that the cloth was medieval, dating from between 1260 and 1390. During the mid-1990s a South African scientist, Professor Nicholas P Allen, conducted experiments to show that, if the image on the Shroud is of medieval origin, it could have been produced in a camera obscura.

He built a room-sized camera obscura containing a lens in one wall. On the opposite wall he suspended a cloth which had been pre-soaked in a solution of a (light-sensitive) silver salt. Outside the camera he suspended a manikin which had been coated in whitewash to reflect the rays of the sun to the maximum extent. After three days he had produced an image on the cloth which he was able to 'fix' by soaking the cloth in urine - a dilute solution of ammonia. The image possessed many of the three-dimensional features of the image on the Shroud of Turin.

All the necessary chemicals would have been available in medieval times.
Posted by deezoid  on  Mon Mar 14, 2005  at  08:54 AM
I knew I could get a copy of the book. It is THE SHROUD OF TURIN by Ian Wilson, published by Doubleday in 1978. I haven't had a chance to do more than glance at it but I discovered that I was wrong on one point, the knight who had the Shroud was Geoffrey de Charny and the Templar was Geoffrey de Charnay. Ian Wilson does suspect a familial relationship due to the name but not is proved, so my belief that it was stated that the Templar was an uncle was in error. As far as the Templars being able to have some of their treasures escape into safekeeping, I can't give a specific reference but I have often come across that claim when reading medieval history. The French king who acted against them was not able to catch all the chapter houses in France at the same time and chapter houses in other countries got plenty of warning since the Templars were not suppressed in all countries at the same time.
Posted by Christopher Cole  on  Mon Mar 14, 2005  at  01:04 PM
Okay, Christopher, one down, three to go.

What about the whip?

What about the shroud bloodstains?

What about the "burst of energy from a body"?

You're not doing a very good job of convincing anyone. I wonder how you managed to convince yourself?

😕
Posted by Rod  on  Mon Mar 14, 2005  at  01:39 PM
I wasn't able to borrow the book until about noon today and I have had little chance to read it. Ian Wilson has another book on the subject, THE BLOOD AND THE SHROUD, Dewey Decimal Number 232.966W74B. I haven't read it but I presume it covers much of the same material with extras.

The evidence of the blood is that the arms show two trails of blood, one at 55 and the other at 65 degrees from the axis of the arm. This is consistent with the crucified person changing position, either to breathe easier or to relieve the pain alternatly in the arms and feet. The blood on the arms starts at a location known as the Space of Destot in the wrist. Medieval artists always showed the nails in the hands and it wasn't until Dr. Pierre Barbet, then Chief Surgeon of St. Joseph's Hospital in PAris, conducted some experiments in the 1930's that it was known that the space would expand and allow a nail through without breaking any bones. The blood trails on the head are consistent with a crown or cap of thorns being worn while the crucification was happening and the head moving while the blood flows. The knees show signs of injury, with a large contusion on the area of the left kneecap and several smaller ones on the right kneecap. The wounds caused by the scourging on two areas of the body show signs of further damage, after the scourging, consistent with carrying a heavy load, and the location of these are again consistent with the size and weight of what we now know to have been the standard crossbeam for a cross. The condemed carrying the crossbeam as the upright was kept in place. The side wound is consistent with a Roman LANCEA and not the more commonly known PILUM or HASTA or HASTA VELITARIS. The hair is of a style identified by German scholar H. Gressman as being typically Jewish. The Romans kept their hair short and were clean shaven (given the razors of the time perhaps stubble shaven owuld be more accurate) and the Jews had beards and long hair in a pigtail braided and tucked under their headgear. The body has been identified by Harvard Professor and ethnologist Carleton S. Coon as of a type represented in modern times by Sephardic Jews and noble Arabs. A Medieval forger would not have painted the body as anything other than European Caucasion. In 1898 two professional artists, identified as Reffo and Cussetti, painted a copy of the Shroud. They got the details of the damaged areas and the repairs right but all other details do not photograph as the Shroud does and do not have the same life-like quality of the Shroud. (An image of a dead man being life-like? We need a new phrase.) I haven't finished reading the book, ir is quite dense with information but I will add more information later.
Posted by Christopher Cole  on  Mon Mar 14, 2005  at  07:09 PM
Wow, if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit, eh?
:gulp:

For a few minutes I was willing to concede that you may not have understood what I meant about the shroud not touching Jesus' body until he was already dead and on the ground, but then I went and re-read my question. I don't really see how you could have misunderstood. My point about that is that he was not bleeding anymore when he was in the shroud, so how would his moving during crucifiction affect blood patterns on the shroud?

So, here is a not-so-quick recap of my questions. Listen closely, print them out if you have to, but just PLEASE answer them.

"The pattern of welts on the back and sides match the Roman whip, the design of which was lost after the fall of the Western Empire." - So, if the design was lost, how can it be claimed that these patterns match it?

"The bloodstains are consistent with crucifition where the torso raises and lowers as the person tries to breathe and gets tired." - But you say it is his burial shroud, not his shroud while he was still "on the cross". I'm not sure I understand what his breathing while crucified has to do with the blood patterns while back on terra firma. Please explain.

"The image is not flat as one might think, it is consistent with a burst of energy from a body with the cloth wrapped against the body" - Did I miss the burst-of-energy-from-a-body page in the textbook? What do you mean?
Posted by Rod  on  Mon Mar 14, 2005  at  10:51 PM
I am trying to go through the book and get the specific references. My original comment was based upon memories of reading the book over twenty years ago.

I wasn't clear about the point of the Roman whips, the design details were lost after the fall of the Western Empire but rediscovered long after the Shroud was known to exist.

The image on the Shroud is described as "fuzzy" and is consistent with the cloth not touching the body continuously, and then a burst of energy from the body making an imprint on the cloth. Somewhat similar to the "nuclear shadows" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The images on the cloth are not bloodstains, nor paint nor any other known substance. This was determined during the 1969 investigation of several of the threads of the Shroud by two Italian laboratories. The stains on the Shroud are on the surface of the threads where blood or paint would have penetrated the threads. Nor was there any sign of the stain between the threads. Trying to disolve the stains resulted in nothing, so the investigators Professor Frache in Modena and Professor Filogama at the University of Turin stated not only that there was no blood, but that the cause of the stain was unknown. Presuming that the stain was caused by some sort of energy burst the details of the body could be imprinted on the cloth without the cloth touching the body at any specific point.

Have I been a bit clearer? I am trying to read the book and present the points made in the book and unfortunately it is going to be piecemeal.
Posted by Christopher Cole  on  Tue Mar 15, 2005  at  09:52 AM
Okay, here I go, Christopher...

The Whip...
Sez you. Can you show me a couple of references? One is not enough. I would imagine something like the rediscovery of the type of whip that they beat Jesus with would have been noticed and written about extensiveley. Everything else to do with this subject has been.

The Bloodstains...
Are you deliberately avoiding the question I put forth about the bloodstains or what? And if this stuff is not blood, what the hell difference does it make if it matches the pattern of someone's wounds?

The Burst of Energy...
I fail to remember reading or finding any references to Jesus being a nuclear weapon. Also, why was the shroud not destroyed if the power of a nuclear weapon was released inside of it?

You're still doing a good job at avoiding the answers that I asked for.
Posted by Rod  on  Tue Mar 15, 2005  at  12:59 PM
At the moment I can't find a reference for the whip, so if you want chalk it up to bad memory and count it against me. I refer to the stains as bloodstains since that is what they how they are called in the book THE SHROUD OF TURIN. The point is that they match how blood flowing on a crucifixion victim would look. I doubt that a 14th century forger would have that sort of data available as a reference. Medieval artists typically painted all Bibical scenes as if in their present-day, so why would a forger go to such detail when any pilgrims who viewed the image would not understand such as being required for authinticity. I didn't say that Jesus was a nuclear weapon. I said that the image was consistent with a burst of energy from a body onto a cloth that did not touch the body at all points. The reference to the nuclear shadows was to point out that there are modern examples of energy producing hazy patterns when the source of energy was not in contact with the place where the shadow or image ended up. Is this clearer?
Posted by Christopher Cole  on  Tue Mar 15, 2005  at  01:36 PM
Christopher...

The Whip...
Okay, I will count it against you, if you insist.

So we're down to two...

The Bloodstains...
So you're telling me that this book that you are using for proof disagrees with you (you say unknown substance, the book says blood.)? My whole point, which I have stated several times is that this shroud was not hanging on the dude when he was hanging on the cross. How does his movement on the cross (which YOU stated caused the bloodstain patterns) affect something he was wrapped in after death?

The Energy Burst...
No, this is not clearer. Not in the least. How did the shroud survive such a power outburst? Are there any examples anywhere on the planet to show a dead body giving off this sort of energy? If something actually gave off the sort of energy that you are talking about, would the "holy land" not be still irradiated, at least to some extent? Please show me a study that shows the results of a power burst like this. Or is it something you're just guessing at, with absolutely no basis in facts?

Score so far...
Me, 2.
You, 0.

My two points...
1.) The Templar Treasure (no reference, just you saying you know it but don't know where from).
2.) The Whip (you asked me to count it against you, citing your own lack of evidence)

All I want is for you to do some critical thinking, and not just say "because I think it." Are you questioning your own beliefs yet? You probably should, seeing as how you can not prove (even to yourself) half of your argument.



Defend your position or abandon it. So far, it looks like it's a good thing for him that O.J. didn't hire YOU.
Posted by Rod  on  Tue Mar 15, 2005  at  02:28 PM
bloodstains: Will it help to refer to them as images of bloodstains? The book refers to them as bloodstains as that is what they appear to be to the naked eye and the images are exactly what bloodstains would be if bloodstains were on the cloth. The stains are not blood, nor paint, nor watercolor, nor any other substance according to the report from the 1969 commision.

energy pattern: Don't fixate on the massive energy that a nuclear blast would generate, the energy could have been something much lower spread out over a period of time. The point is that the pattern of the image. Take a bedsheet and lay it over your body, notice that it does not touch your body at all points. Imagine that your body emits energy that burns or sears an image onto the sheet. Since the energy is coming from several points on your body and will strike the sheet at different angles, the image seared will be fuzzy. Why would a 14th century forger create an image in such a fashion? And, as far as I know, there is no known instance of a body giving off such energy, the point is that the image on the Shroud matches what an image created in such a fashion would look like and not a conventional artistic representation.

If you cannot find a copy of THE SHROUD OF TURIN you might find a later book by the same author on the subject which probably covers much of the same material with additions, I referenced it earlier - THE BLOOD AND THE SHROUD. My copy of THE SHROUD OF TURIN disappeared over twenty years ago and I just borrowed a copy. I am trying to read it and present the evidence Ian Wilson presents in that book.
Posted by Christopher Cole  on  Tue Mar 15, 2005  at  04:22 PM
Okay, this is getting out of hand.

The Bloodstains...
"Will it help to refer to them as images of bloodstains?" No. You seem to have totally missed the whole fricking point. I have explained my question several times and you just keep refusing to answer what I am asking. How does the movement of someone being crucified relate to these markings, which were supposed to have been caused when he was already dead and removed from said cross? Was he still alive when taken down?


The Energy Pattern...
"Since the energy is coming from several points on your body and will strike the sheet at different angles, the image seared will be fuzzy."
So what you're saying here is this... because the light comes off of a round object, the closer the round object to the shroud, the more intense the image, if the energy is strong enough to leave one. I have to agree. Physics, ya know.
Also, you were the one who drew the parallel between this image and "the "nuclear shadows" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki". That brought up the question of how much energy it would take to produce the shadows from a nuclear or atomic blast. You know what? The energy required to burn an image into concrete, as happened in Japan, would instantly incinerate the shroud.

Asking a question such as "Why would a 14th century forger create an image in such a fashion?" does not in any way support your argument. This question has many different answers, and not a single one of them can be proven in any way.
Stating that you don't know how or why someone did something does not mean that he did not do it.
If "why would the forger do this?" is seriously your proof to yourself that the shroud is not forged, you really need to open your eyes.
Posted by Rod  on  Tue Mar 15, 2005  at  05:22 PM
OK, I found what I was looking for about the bloodstains. Until the Turin Commission the stains were thought to be bloodstains and were always refered to as such. Continued use of the term is more in line of a habit. The investigation by Professors Frache and Filogamo was the first time that the supposition that they were bloodstains was tested. Since the stains were refered to as bloodstains for a long time, at least since the examination in the early 20th Century and perhaps earlier, the change of speech patern won't happen quickly. Especially since this issue is not one in constant discussion. This is duscussed in Chapter 4 of the book.
Posted by Christopher Cole  on  Tue Mar 15, 2005  at  06:10 PM
Way to dodge the bloodstain question once again. If I keep asking, what will happen when you run out of ways to dodge?

Do you explode?

From now on, you will see the following quote at the end of my posts, just so you remember what I have asked.

"How does the movement of someone being crucified relate to these markings, which were supposed to have been caused when he was already dead and removed from said cross? Was he still alive when taken down?"

😏
Posted by Rod  on  Tue Mar 15, 2005  at  06:24 PM
Just a few months ago, a new chemical-based test on a new part of the Shroud -taken from its year 2000 public exhibition- dated the shroud to be between 1300 and 3000 years old! The carbon test (the one made in the 80s) which dated the shroud at around 1300 was thus proven false, as the sample came from a part which was added to the original piece of linen. So it seems that even if it was a forgery, it had to have been made at least before the 4th century. Okay, I admit that this new explanation from shadowshroud.com is very convincing, but could they do that in the 4th century??? That would be surprising.
Posted by christian  on  Wed Mar 16, 2005  at  01:36 AM
Christian...

So the new test dated it between 1300 and 3000 years old.

And the old test proved that the "new part" of the shroud is 1300 years old.

I fail to see your reasoning as to how the new test proves the old one wrong.
Posted by Rod  on  Wed Mar 16, 2005  at  02:20 AM
Why doesn't anyone just email and ask the original dude with the glass if his image (eg the pirate) was also fuzzy around the edges, or if it was crisp.

I'd do it if I really cared. 😉
Posted by winona  on  Wed Mar 16, 2005  at  08:15 AM
Replies to two different comments.

The image was made after the body was laid in the tomb, the blood and injuries were on the body at that time and when the image was created the image of these were transfered to the cloth. I was under the impression that you understood this previously and it seems not.

The individual who took the photographs can't be emailed since he was an established photographer in the 19th century and quite surely is long dead, unless you have a special way of emailing the dead that no one else has. The Shroud was the personal property of the King of Italy until he died and I do not know who inherited it, and I have no idea who the glass plates would belong to now, probably the same person/institution since the original photos were commissioned as part of a display around the start of the 20th century.
Posted by Christopher Cole  on  Wed Mar 16, 2005  at  01:20 PM
"The image was made after the body was laid in the tomb, the blood and injuries were on the body at that time and when the image was created the image of these were transfered to the cloth."

DODGE!

You said that these markings were consistent with someone's movements while crucifed. If the body never touched the shroud until he was dead, then how were his movements before death to blame for the images on the shroud?

And did you forget about the energy, as do you concede that point?

"How does the movement of someone being crucified relate to these markings, which were supposed to have been caused when he was already dead and removed from said cross? Was he still alive when taken down?"
Posted by Rod  on  Wed Mar 16, 2005  at  01:35 PM
Clearly what we have here is a lack of a straight story. One is lead to believe one thing and when the facts dont fit it gets changed. This is not a bad thing forsay, but I can see where it will lead. This topic will be argued down to the old 'God did it' rule. When something cannot be explained scientifically then it becomes gods work and no amount of evidence can change that to some people. Clearly what is intended here is that some miracle process was involved in the creation of the image. Lets assume this was placed after the crucifixion, after death. I believe it took three days for Jesus to rise, again there are even different time lines for this, so lets only assume the three day period. Within this time period an image was suppose to be flashed unto the shroud. We are all aware of similar effects occuring on old televisions where the last opped image was seared on the screen for seconds, but yet this cannot apply in this case. There is not enough electricity in the human body to even begin any melding process with a fibre none the less. To believe that something so subtle yet fast (three days for this kind of reaction is unheard of) is capable of creating this would take alot of evidence to back it up. I could be mistaken, I do not know alot about electricity or burn flash process that could create this, Im just trying to be a critical thinker. If I am indeed wrong please correct me.

It goes without saying that I am an atheist but this does not affect my view towards this in the sense that I isolated this instance and approached it in a scientific view to see how it could have occured if at all aside from the medival explanation. We are all aware of Occam's Razor and therefore its application is needed in times like this, were we have two different solutions to a problem. On the one hand we have a Medieval technique that not only could have occured but we have evidence supporting that it did occur. On the other hand we have what will most likely become a 'miracle' effect that would have an image burned in three days because this was the son of god and therefore could be done in the sense that god can and will do anything.

We humans have a basic falling. We inhibit believes, some have a firm ground while others play on our ability to want it to be real. As science grows and expands it essentially kills the mystic affect of our world which existed long ago. People often see things where there is nothing, it is our nature to create order out of chaos. This is why we jump to conclusions and assume before we judge. At best the shroud is a relic of a time lost, of when the world was full of mystical animals and spells. Surely some questions have yet to be answered about the shroud but it is illogical to assume something as complexed as god when it is most likely there is a natural explanation.

"The believer is happy and the doubter is wise."
Posted by Genesis  on  Wed Mar 16, 2005  at  03:18 PM
Hell's teeth and pogo sticks!

It ain't a dodge, if the image was created after death and faithfully shows the condition of the body as it existed at the time, what's your problem? If you read the Gospel accounts you would notice that haste in getting the body into the tomb was required due to the approaching Passover Sabbath. Jesus died about 3 PM and it took time for Joseph of Arimathea to learn this, unless he was at the site, it took time for him to reach Pilate and ask for the body and it took time for Pilate to send a centurian to check the body and return with a report. Thus it would be close to sunset. Sabbath starts at sunset, and on the sabbath no work is to be done, especially work on dead bodies which would make the worker ritually impure, especially on Passover. So the unwashed body would still have the marks and blood flows from the crucifixion and scourging etc. Which is probably why the women were going to the tomb first thing Sunday morning as that would be the first time it would be legal and safe to do the washing and preperation. If the image matches what such events would put onto a body and if the image also has information, such as that about the spot of Destot that would be unlikely to be known by a 14th century forger, if other information about the image is not in accord with medieval artistic conventions, such as the identified ethnic type, then this throws doubt on it being a forgery.

I found a reference to my earlier Templar comment but now I doubt you would care. But just in case, in THE SHROUD OF TURIN is a short description of the taking of the chapter house in Paris, the headquarters of the Templars, with the source listed for the information as HISTORIE DE L'ORDRE MILITAIRE DES TEMPLIERS (1713) de Puy.
Posted by Christopher Cole  on  Wed Mar 16, 2005  at  07:56 PM
Now, you have said about the energy burst that you could find no references to support your claim.

So far you have not been able to support even one of your 4 assertions. This really makes me wonder how, if you can not prove a single one of them to me, you can believe them yourself with no proof.
Posted by Rod  on  Wed Mar 16, 2005  at  08:30 PM
Genesis... that is what I am trying to make this guy see.

Christopher...


"The image was made after the body was laid in the tomb, the blood and injuries were on the body at that time and when the image was created the image of these were transfered to the cloth" - Posted by Christopher Cole on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 02:20 PM

"The bloodstains are consistent with crucifition where the torso raises and lowers as the person tries to breathe and gets tired" - Posted by Christopher Cole on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 08:00 PM

"How does the movement of someone being crucified relate to these markings, which were supposed to have been caused when he was already dead and removed from said cross? Was he still alive when taken down?" - Rod (numerous times)

So you are saying he was dead when he touched the shroud. Therefore your assertion that the patterns of the stains match a person's movement on the cross makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and can not be held up as proof of authenticity.

Rod, 3
Christopher, 0
Posted by Rod  on  Wed Mar 16, 2005  at  08:49 PM
And thank you, Christian, for giving me my new catch-phrase.

"Hell's teeth and pogo sticks!"
Posted by Rod  on  Wed Mar 16, 2005  at  08:53 PM
"The individual who took the photographs can't be emailed since he was an established photographer in the 19th century and quite surely is long dead, unless you have a special way of emailing the dead that no one else has."

You've misunderstood who I'm talking about. I was talking about the guy who just made the images with glass, you know, the one that started this thread.
Posted by Winona  on  Thu Mar 17, 2005  at  08:25 AM
I owe myself an apology for thinking you educated to at least the high school level Rod. So I will get a bit more basic - if you still don't understand get your Mommy to explain the big words.

The principle is called Deductive Reasoning, it is the basis of the scientific process. Start with the fact that the image shows considerable detail and that certain deductions can be made from these details. Are these details consistent with a body having been crucified? Yes. Are the details consistent with 1st Century Roman equipment and practices? Yes. Are there details unlikely to be known by someone living in the 14th Century? Yes. Are these details consistent with medieval art? Some yes and others no. Therefore the image give evidence of being that of a man who was crucified and the evidence is credible.

The comment about the energy is more high school physics. I am sure that when you take a course in physics your teacher, being professionally trained to do exactly this, will make it more understandable. Any energy source will give off energy in non-parallel lines unless some outside agency constrains them. Non-parallel lines will diverge as the distance increases from the source. Images created by these, such as shadows, will be fuzzy around the edges. Even though the Sun is far enough away so that most of the energy lines are parallel, you can still see this effect with your shadow. The nuclear images are another example. I am not saying that the body blew up, I am saying that the image on the cloth has fuzzy edges as if created by an energy source impinging on the cloth. This is not the sort of image that a medieval artist would create, at least I know of no such image - do you?
Posted by Christopher Cole  on  Thu Mar 17, 2005  at  01:53 PM
Sorry Winona for the misunderstanding. The original photos were taken using glass plates, thus my confusion.
Posted by Christopher Cole  on  Thu Mar 17, 2005  at  01:55 PM
Okay, point by point.

"Start with the fact that the image shows considerable detail and that certain deductions can be made from these details."

Okay.

"Are these details consistent with a body having been crucified?" Maybe. But this is not what we're talking about here. You asserted that these markings proved it was real because they were the markings that would result from a person's movements on the cross. You conceded he was dead when he touched the shroud, so I therefore proved your assertion wrong.

"Are the details consistent with 1st Century Roman equipment and practices?" What does this have to do with any of the four things I'm asking about? Stick to the subject.

"Are there details unlikely to be known by someone living in the 14th Century?" Even if this made a difference in what I am asking, how do you think we have the knowledge of what happened then? Is it not concievable that someone knew this info then, too?

"Are these details consistent with medieval art?" What difference does that make to what I am asking?

And, by the way, the only way that the image could be made by the body inside it in the way that you assert, would be if the sheet was held perfectly flat below AND above for enough time for the image to form. If this was actually a burial shroud, the image would be much larger and more blurred, as the corpse's legs and arms would be touching the sides also.

Try it. Get someone, preferably naked and female, and cover them with paint. Have them lay down on a sheet. Place another sheet on top of them. Don't forget that the body was moved into the crypt after it was wrapped, so get somebody to help you move the body around a bit. (Leaving them there for two days is optional.) Now remove the sheets. Does your image in any way resemble the shroud?

And as for the petty high-school B.S.... Can it, you won't win by pissing me off.
Posted by Rod  on  Thu Mar 17, 2005  at  02:28 PM
Well if you really asseted a scientific method chris then one would not be lead to believe this is the shroud of jesus. Because science always starts from today and works its way backwards, it is not bias, it does not make conclusions that jump. Your train of thought starts with 'Jesus is the son of god' therefore everything else false into place. If we do truly take a scientific view we would be led to very different results. Lets for the sake of argument ignore the fact that this can be created in a very humanly way and lets ignore all those medieval datings. Now we could make the assertion then that it looks to be consistant with the idea of a man being cruxified. This is the best we can do without probing deeper using other methods. To make the jump to 'this is Jesus' simply defies logic and reason.

Lets introduce what we know about it. The process does not require some unnatural force, it can be replicated. Qualities you look as being that of a genuine article are also shown to exist in the replica of the shroud. Surely I can only assume you see the blurriness from the pictures of the shroud, well one should notice very similar levels of blurriness on the replica. Often we find when confronted with such relics that many arguments come up about details that could not be replicated and look to designed, yet I believe this is only because we choose to look that deep into it. If you want to look at another case such as this look at crop circles and the claims of how they could not be replicated yet they are with exact results. Now I am uncertain of what the official timeline for the shroud are but I have heard it was given medieval times, and also parts of it were dated back to the 4th century. It is pretty reasonable to assume a medieval artist could have gotten his hand on a 4th century cloth, afterall we unearth alot of materials even now. Now a person who was living in the medieval period could have had access to vaults of information about the death of jesus and other cruxificions. Surely some matches in story to the cloth have to exists, after all he would have gotten his information from the bible, as do you. Anything too different from those accounts and it would not appear to be Jesus. The reason why we probably have the shroud today is because whoever did it was an expert and knew he had to meet some requirements, this is most likely why other would-be relics are not around, because people even then had some idea of what logic was, and it would be hard to pass up a new cloth for that of one from a thousand years ago.

If you take a look at this case from the beginning, you will always find that there is no reason to believe it should be other then a very good fake of something even less credible. If there is any evidence that should point to something otherwordly please let me know, I would love to discuss it.

"The believer is happy and the doubter is wise."
Posted by Genesis  on  Thu Mar 17, 2005  at  02:31 PM
Well said, Genesis.

Good quote, too.
Posted by Rod  on  Thu Mar 17, 2005  at  03:34 PM
Actually, Christopher, what I have just decided is this. I will repost my original questions. Read them. Post your answers, showing either your supporting proof or admitting your lack of said proof for each of these four questions.

If you do not respond by answering these questions, and fire off another post rambling about a whole bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with what I asked, well, then that would just show that you really ARE dodging entirely.

I know you have tried to respond to some of these already, but I would just appreciate it if you could put all of the answers into a single post.

1. "Not all of the Templar treasures were found when they were surpressed." - And this statement is based on what? Do you have knowledge of lost treasure only you are privy to?

2. "The pattern of welts on the back and sides match the Roman whip, the design of which was lost after the fall of the Western Empire." - So, if the design was lost, how can it be claimed that these patterns match it?

3. "The bloodstains are consistent with crucifition where the torso raises and lowers as the person tries to breathe and gets tired." - But you say it is his burial shroud, not his shroud while he was still "on the cross". I'm not sure I understand what his breathing while crucified has to do with the blood patterns while back on terra firma. Please explain.

4. "The image is not flat as one might think, it is consistent with a burst of energy from a body with the cloth wrapped against the body" - Did I miss the burst-of-energy-from-a-body page in the textbook? What do you mean?
Posted by Rod  on  Thu Mar 17, 2005  at  03:53 PM
And the results of deductive reasoning are not proof, only supposition.
Posted by Rod  on  Thu Mar 17, 2005  at  04:53 PM
One of my all-time favorite hoaxes. as fans of hoaxes, you already know that the best ones have occured completely by accident. We do crap every day that might baffle future culture. Seems also like many christians feel better when they imagine a European-jesus. Here's one example that is based on archeaological knowledge. (Doesn't do too much good to quote Genesis when it's from the Jewish testament. If Gutenberg hadn't changed his mind about including it, christians wouldn't be reading the 'non-jesus' ancient texts.)
Also, we don't really know much about Jesus' resting place as the accounts don't match and there is no eyewitness record. Some accounts say he was NOT nailed to the cross but tied. Other's say it wasn't a cross at all but a pole (wood was scarce and execution poles have been discovered in the area).
These are all the assumptions-as-basis signs of a classic hoax. For the shroud to be real, you have to believe in some erroneous myths that are not biblical in origin.
Some relevant facts:<UL>
<LI>Jesus never carried his cross. In fact, Simon was forced to carry it (acc. to Matthew, Mark, Luke)
<LI>Jesus body was fully clothed (same)
<LI>There was no crown of thorns. That's just artistic license
<LI>Matthew and Mark mention nothing of nails and crosses. John alludes to nails afer the fact.
<LI>Jesus wasn't stabbed in the side. That's German in origin.</UL>
The whole Passion Play concept is Germanic and comes from John, the only version suggesting a dramatic crucifixion. However, John's account also refutes the existence of: The Last Supper, the betrayal of Judas, the miracles, etc. Even so, the only mention of blood in John comes from Jesus's prediction of his fate - not from the description of what came after the arrest.
Then there's Matthew which says that when Jesus died, all the surrounding tombs burst forth with Zombies that invaded the city (27:52-53, depending on which translation and version)
Posted by jimmyjay  on  Fri Mar 18, 2005  at  09:36 PM
In reading over some of the above posts, I'm amazed how much of our culture's concept of christianity is based on Hollywood and popular myth. From there, people try to make the shroud fit one particular man in one particular place and time, disregarding anything learned from this site or Alex's book (see assumptions of blood stains, etc.).
A case in point.
People hear about the Catholic-only Concept of Immaculation. They then transfigure it to Immaculate Conception. They then jump to an assumption that it has something to do with Biological Conception (unknown when Immaculation was invented) followed by the conclusion that "Immaculate Conception means that Mary was a virgin that gave birth". It has nothing to with births or jesus. In fact,it has to do with the Concept of Ascension. The conception is, for females to Ascend to heaven, they have to be sainted and absolved of sin (immaculation). Now apply just this one modern misinterpretation to the assumptions made about the Passion in the book of John. Therein lies the pre-existing gullibiliies which lead to erroneous applications of solutions: perfect hoax material!
Posted by jimmyjay  on  Fri Mar 18, 2005  at  10:08 PM
Where on the shroud is the top of the head?
The image has the front forehead connected to the back of the head. If the shroud was not touching the top of the head there should be a space between the front and back image. If it was touching the top of the head should connect the front and back image. A big mistake here so it seems a forgery.
Posted by Thinking  on  Sat Mar 19, 2005  at  04:41 AM
Rod, you have come across as a moronic asshole who has driven me mad with your posts to this thread. And I am sure you feel the same. I just realized why. You are demanding that I prove a proposition I am not making. You demand I prove that the Shroud is a miraculous item, the actual burial shroud of Jesus. I have been arguing that it is not a 14th century forgery. Is the Shroud a miraculous relic? I don't know and I don't care. I was raised as a Low-Church Episcopalian, which if you know what that means (and I realize few do anymore, even Episcopalians) you would know my distain for relics and such.

Now, I just wrote this and it was rejected as too long. So, I am going to break it into smaller messages.
Posted by Christopher Cole  on  Sat Mar 19, 2005  at  01:42 PM
In regards to your last post, what a load of bullshit. I took direct quotes from YOUR posts and asked you to explain.

This has nothin to do with the shroud baeing fake or not. It has to do with you being smart enough to actually read what I have written and respond to it without going off on a tangent that really has fuck all to do with what I asked.

And doing that repeatedly.

Now, answer my questions or admit that you were wrong about your assertions.
Posted by Rod  on  Sat Mar 19, 2005  at  01:49 PM
Continuing:
1)Yves Delage, Professor of Comparitive Anatomy Sorbonne, gave a report to the Paris Academy of Sciences in 1902. This was publish by Paul Vignon, later Professor of Biology at Institute Catholique, Paris. The report covered an examination of the photograpghic images and determined evidence of several blosw to the face, described as not likely to be noticed by a layman. The report also described the images of wounds around the top of the head and found them consistent with a cap or crwon of thorny material. Paul Vignon said of these images, one in paticular, "No painter, in his most elaborate work, has ever risen to such exactitude." The report also describes the images on the back, and some on the front as well, as being from a scourging by a Roman flagra. The report shows that the scourging was done by two men who were of different heights.
2) Dr. Pierre Barbet, Chief Surgeon of St. Joseph's Hospital Paris, conducted experiments on cadavers and amputated limbs. The report previousl mentioned described blood flow on the arms and Dr. Barbet discovered that the origin of these bloodflows was from the area known as the space of Destot. He discovered that nails driven through this space would not break bones, it had been previously thought that bones would break rendering the area useless for crucifixtion. He also discovered that nails driven through this space by stimulating a nerve in the area would force the thumb to roll up. Source: A DOCTOR AT CALVARY translated 1953.
3)Dr. Max Frei, Head of the Zurich Police Scientific Laboratory, began an investigation of pollen found on the Shroud in 1974. He discovered that pollen from Palestine and Turkey were present as well as pollen from Western Europe and Italy. The Shroud had been exposed to the air in these regions long enough to acquire the pollen. Information given in personal interviews with Ian Wilson.
Posted by Christopher Cole  on  Sat Mar 19, 2005  at  01:59 PM
Continuing:
4) Professor Frache, Modena, and Professor Filogamo, University of Turin, conducted seperate examinations of various threads to determine if there was actual blood on the Shroud. They found no blood, nor pain or any other pigment that a medieval artist would have used. Turin Commission on the Holy Shroud, LA S. SINDONE, supplement to RIVISTA DIOCESANA TORINESE, 1976.
5) The professors also discovered that the stains did not penetrate the linen threads, even under high magnification. Above.
6)In 1977 a conference was held in Albuquerque NM on the Shroud. Ian Wilson attended and used his personal knowledge, as well as interviews with Dr. John Jackson, Capt. USAF, later Assistant Professor at the Air Force Academy. Using the equipment and techniques that JPL was then using on the Viking Mission photographs image specialist Jean Lorre and supervisor Donald Lynn discovered the image of a small coin consistent with a 1st Century lepton over each eye. These images would not be visible to the naked eye. As of the time of the publication of THE SHROUD OF TURIN details confirming the identity of the coin had not been found. Dr. Jackson conducted a preliminary spectrographic analysis using a color photograph of the Shroud and discovered that the image had the same spectrographic results as the burn marks from the 1534 fire. Image analysis determines that the image on the Shroud is consistent with a 3-dimensional object being projected onto the cloth, it is not consistent with a flat image such as a photograph or painting being projected onto the cloth.
Posted by Christopher Cole  on  Sat Mar 19, 2005  at  02:14 PM
Comments: Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.