Turin Shroud and Carbon Dating
joseph l rooney
There is a recent publication concerning the Shroud which all who are
interested in this topic should review regardless of the position one
takes on the date of the Shroud. It is titled "Relic, Icon or Hoax?" It
was written by Harry Gove, who was involved in the the carbon dating of
the Shroud in 1988. I thought I would call it to the group's attention
since I had not seen it mentioned in previous posts.
what is interesting about the book is that Dr. Gove considers the work of
Drs. Mattingly and Garza-Valdes to present a serious challange to the
accuracy of the carbon dating. Briefly, these researchers have found that
bacteria and fungi can produce a bio-plastic coating around objects such
as ancient fibres. Because the bacteria take their nourishment from the
air, they can be adding carbon with a component of carbon-14
contemporaneous with the time of bacterial growth, ann thus younger than
the cellulose of the textile. Because the cleaning technique used in the
carbon -14 dating process could leave this bio-plastic coating intact, the
dating of the Shroud can be called into question. But just how off the
dating was has not been established.
Considering that one of the participants of the originalcarbon-14 tests
gives this new theory some merit, we should not be closeminded to the
possibility that the Shroud is actually much older than we think. It only
goes to show that history is just educated guesses based on an incomplete
record no matter how "scientific" our methodology and data gathering may
be. We'll never know for sure the answer to this mystery.
Joe R.
Salvus
Actually I really don't know why I bother responding, except to say that
this just goes to prove what I have been saying for years. Facts and
historical evidence have absolutely no bearing on the beliefs a person
chooses to hold. He will hold his cultic beliefs regardless of
scientific or historical facts, or evidence presented for that matter.
It is well known in history that when the facts do not suit the cultic
belief, they will be altered accordingly, and without hesitation by the
cultist. This whole shroud hoax has been put to rest so many times, and
so effectively, that to open it up again is just a waste of time.
Cultists will believe what ever they wish anyway!
An example of this can be found in the Gallop survey on Bible beliefs
published by Bible Review Magazine a few years ago. It showed that while
education, (or the lack thereof) had a direct bearing on how people
believe in the Bible, the highest percentage of bible believers was
markedly found in the camp of those with less than a high school
education (45%.) The smallest group of believers was found among college
graduates (11%.) If there was any validity to this survey, I must
suspect your "Drs. Mattingly and Garza-Valdes" (even if they do fall in
the 11%,) have very good reasons for their questionable findings.
Perhaps even their own religious beliefs. Do they hold to the Christian,
Moslem or Jewish faiths, or can they really be objective in their
findings by stating they have no personal allegiance of their own.
I would be highly suspect of the findings of any scientist who admitted
to holding subscriptions to any of the above orthodox cults.
Unfortunately it has become customary for most religiously orthodox
scientists and governments to protect orthodox cults against exposure,
for fear of their own exposure in the long run. An excellent example of
this can be found in the attempted publication prohibition of the Dead
Sea Scrolls. Another example is the successful suppressing by the
Israeli Government of the events occurring, and the total number of
scrolls discovered, at the Masada excavations back in the 60s.
Actually this conversation is, in my opinion, verging on being
inappropriate for this newsgroup, (not that my opinion matters at this
point anyway.) Maybe alt.religion.
Salvus
Raven (J. Singleton)
joseph l rooney (roo...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
[snip]
| Considering that one of the participants of the originalcarbon-14 tests
| gives this new theory some merit, we should not be closeminded to the
| possibility that the Shroud is actually much older than we think.
Irrelevant. It still can't be what is claimed for it, an impression of a
body on the cloth wrapped around it. It's a painting, in much more modern
style than that of the Classical period, attempting to suggest such an
impression -- so if presented as that, it was a forgery from the beginning.
[snip]
| We'll never know for sure the answer to this mystery.
Sure we will, and I'll tell you how. Smear a water-based paint over your
face, and while that's still wet, wrap a smooth cloth around your head.
Then take the cloth off, wash your face, and look at the imprint on the
cloth. It won't look anything like a portrait. Rather than the "full face"
view you see in a photographic or painted portrait, you see the same sort
of laterally "stretched" faceprint you'd have gotten from rolling your
painted head across a flat cloth, in proportions like that of a face skinned
from the head and laid flat -- much wider than it is tall.
If the "Shroud of Turin" were an imprint from being wrapped around an
embalmed body, it would look like your faceprint. Instead, it looks like
a portrait. It uses all the techniques of portraiture -- perspective as if
from a forward POV, shading to produce highlights and shadows -- which
artists use to give the optical illusion of a face seen under overhead
lighting, but which a real faceprint doesn't produce (there are only
contact and non-contact areas). It even shows the shade variations of the
eyes -- which *definitely* don't show on a faceprint.
Carbon testing or not, this never could have been what it was claimed to be.
-- Raven | "Forgive no error you recognize; it will
| repeat itself, increase, and afterward
raven @ solaria.sol.net | our pupils will not forgive in us
| what we forgave." Yevgeny Yevtushenko
thx
>what is interesting about the book is that Dr. Gove considers the work of
>Drs. Mattingly and Garza-Valdes to present a serious challange to the
>accuracy of the carbon dating. Briefly, these researchers have found that
>bacteria and fungi can produce a bio-plastic coating around objects such
>as ancient fibres. Because the bacteria take their nourishment from the
>air, they can be adding carbon with a component of carbon-14
>contemporaneous with the time of bacterial growth, ann thus younger than
>the cellulose of the textile. Because the cleaning technique used in the
>carbon -14 dating process could leave this bio-plastic coating intact, the
>dating of the Shroud can be called into question. But just how off the
>dating was has not been established.
It never ceases to amaze me how far people will go to find a problem
to their solution. If you start out with a conclusion, you can keep on
altering reality to suit your beliefs forever. What's next? The shroud
was given to us by aliens?
If you want to see an independent analysis of this go to:
http://www.csicop.org/articles/shroud.html
-----------------------------------------------------
x-no-archive:yes
Send me commercial email of any kind for any reason and I
will activate the Revenge(tm) program. Revenge will automatically
sign the spam sender up to almost 300 mailing lists to provide a
graphic illustration of what it's like to receive unwanted junk e-mail.
Mario Latendresse
thx...@EarthDome.Com (thx) writes:
> It never ceases to amaze me how far people will go to find a problem
> to their solution. If you start out with a conclusion, you can keep on
> altering reality to suit your beliefs forever. What's next? The shroud
> was given to us by aliens?
> If you want to see an independent analysis of this go to:
> http://www.csicop.org/articles/shroud.html
Once again we see people making wild assertion without good support.
First if some people assert that it was given 'by aliens' it certainly
does not come from people who believe the Shroud not to be of
medieval origin. It would be the opposite.
As for CSICOP to be 'independent' you must be kiding. Their analyses
is continuously superficial and use pseudo scientific work. To support
my claim I just have to cite one paragraph of this web CSICOP page:
According to Joe Nickell, author of Inquest on the Shroud of Turin
(1988) and an investigative writer for Skeptical Inquirer magazine,
"There is abundant data on which to judge the shroud a forgery even
apart from the carbon dating."
Joe Nickell never published a peer review paper on the subject of the
Shroud or any related subject. What csicop does is just citing one man
that believes what they would like to believe. CSICOP never takes the
time to analyse the numerous scientific papers that were published in
peer review scientific magazines. Instead they use Nickell's work that
has no scientific support. I am wondering who is really promoting true
scientific work. Certainly not CSICOP in this case. It is just a
popular statement to please their followers.
Is it not ironic that most references to support inauthenticity of the
Shroud by CSICOP comes from popular magazines and books and never peer
review paper (That includes the C-14 dating paper that was not
published and a scientific peer review magazine.)
The problem that faces a statement that the Shroud is of medieval
origin is quite steep.
The one true main problem is: no proper reproduction of an image like
the one reproduced on the Shroud has ever been performed so far.
And that incudes the pseudo method of Nickell and Picknett & Prince.
Their reproductions do not have some specific physical detail found
on the Shroud. Consult the appropriate scientific papers by STURP
and you'll undertsand better what it is all about.
Joe Nickell methods is like painting a rock with gold paint and
states that the rock is now gold. You have to conduct a microscopic
analyses and compare it to the real object you are trying to imitate.
Nickell never performed that and his method remains an illusion.
In his book he reproduces something having a similar look but that is
very far from what the Shroud represents in term of microscopic
details. This is where CSICOP presentations never state or discuss which
is to say almost nothing on the subject.
Mario Latendresse
-----------------
Laboratoire de parallélisme informatique| Computer parallelism laboratory
Université de Montréal (Canada)
email:late...@iro.umontreal.ca, http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~latendre
Mario Latendresse
Raven writes:
> Sure we will, and I'll tell you how. Smear a water-based paint over
> your face, and while that's still wet, wrap a smooth cloth around
> your head. Then take the cloth off, wash your face, and look at the
> imprint on the cloth. It won't look anything like a portrait.
> Rather than the "full face" view you see in a photographic or
> painted portrait, you see the same sort of laterally "stretched"
> faceprint you'd have gotten from rolling your painted head across a
> flat cloth, in proportions like that of a face skinned from the head
> and laid flat -- much wider than it is tall.
> If the "Shroud of Turin" were an imprint from being wrapped around
> an embalmed body, it would look like your faceprint.
This is bizarre !
You suppose that it was formed in a certain way but decry it as
inappropriate !
This is your supposition that is wrong. That's all there is to it.
> Instead, it looks like a portrait. It uses all the techniques of
> portraiture -- perspective as if from a forward POV, shading to
> produce highlights and shadows -- which artists use to give the
> optical illusion of a face seen under overhead lighting, but which a
> real faceprint doesn't produce (there are only contact and
> non-contact areas).
You again suppose that IF it were authentic it MUST have been produced
by contact or no contact. Which of course is not at all the way it was
produced if it is authentic since there are variations of shades
proportional to the distance from the body to the linen cloth. Why
should it be produced the way YOU think the body of Jesus would
produce it ? Your supposition has no support on the basis that
history has never recorded the imprint of a dead body like the Shroud.
Therefore it was produced and a particular way that is not as obvious
as you describe it. Otherwise we would have more such imprint.
AND MOST IMPORTANT:
The variations of intensity of the color is not in the color
itself but rather in the NUMBER of linen fibrils colored !
You have to consider this very important detail to explain
the formation of the image. That's what a painter cannot do by
hand.
No one ever produced by painting what you suppose is done by painting.
Many professional artists did try and failed.
If it is so easy, give me ONE artist that reproduced it the way
you describe it. I expect at least one, since you describe it as
easy going.
If you can reproduce by painting the similarities of the image on the
Shroud (including the microscopic details just mention) I am ready to
pay 20 000$ for it. Good luck !
Raven (J. Singleton)
Mario Latendresse (late...@raptor.IRO.UMontreal.CA) wrote:
| Raven writes:
| > Sure we will, and I'll tell you how. Smear a water-based paint over
| > your face, and while that's still wet, wrap a smooth cloth around
| > your head. Then take the cloth off, wash your face, and look at the
| > imprint on the cloth. It won't look anything like a portrait.
| > Rather than the "full face" view you see in a photographic or
| > painted portrait, you see the same sort of laterally "stretched"
| > faceprint you'd have gotten from rolling your painted head across a
| > flat cloth, in proportions like that of a face skinned from the head
| > and laid flat -- much wider than it is tall.
|
| > If the "Shroud of Turin" were an imprint from being wrapped around
| > an embalmed body, it would look like your faceprint.
|
| This is bizarre !
|
| You suppose that it was formed in a certain way but decry it as
| inappropriate !
I myself do NOT suppose that it was "formed" by contact with a body it
enshrouded. That supposition is what was advanced for it as a miracle.
My point is that a cloth wrapped around a body, or a head, even if it
were imprinted with the image somehow, would not show the forward view
of a face-front photograph or painted portrait, as this Shroud does.
Not only the center of the face is seen from the front, but also the
side of the head (temples, ears) is seen as if from the front.
But if the cloth was wrapped, or even draped, around the head, then the
temples and ears would be seen from the sides where the cloth fell against
them. Cloth draped over the ear would have a flat side view of the ear,
showing the corrugated interior of the pinna, not the edge-on view of a
face-front portrait. But look at the Shroud -- the latter is what you see.
Every part of the cloth which shows a body or head imprint should have it
from the angle at which that part of the cloth was draped or wrapped --
IF it was imprinted by enshrouding that body. But it doesn't.
The perspective of the portrait is from a single position in front of
the face, the viewpoint of a camera or a painter.
Conclusion: this is not a "Shroud's-eye view" of a body, not something
imprinted (by any method) from being wrapped or draped around a body.
| This is your supposition that is wrong. That's all there is to it.
Well, I've given my reasoning for my assertion. Give yours for yours.
| > Instead, it looks like a portrait. It uses all the techniques of
| > portraiture -- perspective as if from a forward POV, shading to
| > produce highlights and shadows -- which artists use to give the
| > optical illusion of a face seen under overhead lighting, but which a
| > real faceprint doesn't produce (there are only contact and
| > non-contact areas).
|
| You again suppose that IF it were authentic it MUST have been produced
| by contact or no contact. Which of course is not at all the way it was
| produced
So far, so good. I said that it was not produced by such contact, and
I explained exactly why I drew this conclusion. I'm glad we can agree.
| if it is authentic since there are variations of shades
| proportional to the distance from the body to the linen cloth.
Including the shades IN the eye? The white, iris, and pupil of an eye
are part of the same eye. By your reasoning, they should be one shade.
Explain the shading of the temples and ears by this reasoning, if the
linen cloth was wrapped or draped around the head. Why are they shaded
as they are -- and so as to provide a viewpoint from in front of face,
rather than from where the cloth came around the side?
| Why should it be produced the way YOU think the body of Jesus would
| produce it ?
I don't think the body of Jesus produced it any way at all.
It was produced the way an artist might think the body of Jesus would
produce it -- but the artist didn't think it all the way through.
| Your supposition has no support on the basis that history has never
| recorded the imprint of a dead body like the Shroud.
Right! Which ought to have raised the first doubt in your mind.
But IF a body were to imprint a shroud around it, the shroud would not,
at the same time, be a flat surface. It would approximate body contours,
roughly horizontal on top of the body, curving or folding around to roughly
diagonal, then roughly vertical, on the sides of the body. Perspective,
and even "shading proportional to distance", would have to reflect that.
But this strictly-front-view perspective doesn't.
| Therefore it was produced and a particular way that is not as obvious
| as you describe it. Otherwise we would have more such imprint.
Particularly, it wasn't produced as a shroud imprinted by a body in it.
| AND MOST IMPORTANT:
| The variations of intensity of the color is not in the color
| itself but rather in the NUMBER of linen fibrils colored !
| You have to consider this very important detail to explain
| the formation of the image. That's what a painter cannot do by hand.
[snip to end]
Since you've also said that this variation is proportional to distance,
I invite you to explain why distance should affect number of "fibrils"...
And why the "focus" remains sharp on the more "distant" features, as
with a picture formed by a lens (on retina or film), rather than the
diffuse effect formed by an unlensed glow caught on film, cloth, or
other surface. If you wrapped a photochemically treated cloth around
a body-shaped shell with lights to make it glow, the light would go
from body to cloth at all angles, not all in the same direction.
There would be no focussed image, and certainly not a front-viewpoint.
If this truly was a linen cloth over the body of Jesus, not only did
the cloth have to be stretched flat and horizontal above him (rather than
wrapped around him) in order to have this perspective, but all the light
(or whatever radiation left the imprint) had to go in parallel vertical
rays, straight up from each body part to the corresponding part of the
cloth, as if each cell were a laser pointing straight up. Otherwise
some of the "nose" radiation would imprint the "cheek", "forehead", "eye",
and "mouth" areas of the cloth, and you'd get a dull diffuse imprint with
no sharply focussed features. Perhaps that was how this "miracle" happened.
But then why would shading be proportional to distance? Normal radiation
in all directions diminishes in intensity with distance -- actually as the
inverse square of distance -- precisely because it radiates at all angles.
Coherent light, as in lasers, being parallel, diminishes more slowly,
which is why earthbound lasers can hit the moon brightly enough to see.
The difference in distance from, say, nosetip to eyelid, would produce
no noticeable difference in intensity -- not if all the rays were parallel.
So each "lasing" body cell would equally irradiate its part of the cloth.
But then all you'd see on the Shroud would be one solid silhouette.
Instead of this, you see a portrait. Not an imprint, contact or radiant.
TRM
Mario Latendresse wrote:
>
> The one true main problem is: no proper reproduction of an image like
> the one reproduced on the Shroud has ever been performed so far.
Actually one has been made. Using camera obscura techniques, the image
of a bust was projected onto treated cloth for several hours. The image
was similar in many ways to that on the Shroud.
Mario Latendresse
Raven (J. Singleton) writes:
> I myself do NOT suppose that it was "formed" by contact with a body it
> enshrouded. That supposition is what was advanced for it as a miracle.
No, not really.
What is indeed advanced is that Jesus did left an imprint while he was
in this Shroud. As to how it was done, is another matter. And certainly
the simple contact theory does not hold and it is not done as
if 'totally wrapped'. More on this further down.
> My point is that a cloth wrapped around a body, or a head, even if it
> were imprinted with the image somehow, would not show the forward view
> of a face-front photograph or painted portrait, as this Shroud does.
>
> Not only the center of the face is seen from the front, but also the
> side of the head (temples, ears) is seen as if from the front.
>
You are right that the image left is not coherent with the sheet
still wrapped around the body. Moreover there are other simple
facts that shows that the image left is not done while the body has
a full gravity pull: otherwise the image of the back of the body
would show a rather flat surface. This is rather obvious.
Therefore, if anybody wants to support the assertion that the Shroud
is authentic, the body imprint is done in a particular manner as if
the body is in the air and the soudarion (sheet of linen) is stretched
out (or as if everything occured that way).
> But if the cloth was wrapped, or even draped, around the head, then
> the temples and ears would be seen from the sides where the cloth
> fell against them. Cloth draped over the ear would have a flat side
> view of the ear, showing the corrugated interior of the pinna, not
> the edge-on view of a face-front portrait. But look at the Shroud
> -- the latter is what you see. Every part of the cloth which shows
> a body or head imprint should have it from the angle at which that
> part of the cloth was draped or wrapped -- IF it was imprinted by
> enshrouding that body. But it doesn't.
You are right again. The idea that the body imprint is done the
way you describe is not the right way ... Everybody agree on this.
This is a basic fact recognised by all who studied the Shroud.
Yet that does not prove the Shroud not to be authentic. It
shows that the imprint was done in very peculiar manner.
> The perspective of the portrait is from a single position in front of
> the face, the viewpoint of a camera or a painter.
>
> Conclusion: this is not a "Shroud's-eye view" of a body, not something
> imprinted (by any method) from being wrapped or draped around a body.
>
> | This is your supposition that is wrong. That's all there is to it.
>
> Well, I've given my reasoning for my assertion. Give yours for yours.
>
My reasoning so far about what you have proposed is to say
the same thing as you are saying: it is not done as if the
body is fully wrapped.
BUT, it is still possible that the body of Jesus did left
the image imprint while he is in the soudarion : for that
everything as to go as if the body has no longer any weight and
as if the sheet of linen is straight.
AND, I don't see how you can conclude that it was painted. Which was
your first major assertion to explain the formation of the
image. Trying to explain it by painting has some major problem one of
which I stated in the post about the intensity of the color done by
the number of fibrils colored and not the intensity of the color
itself. We'll come to this once again in this post further down.
> | if it is authentic since there are variations of shades
> | proportional to the distance from the body to the linen cloth.
>
> Including the shades IN the eye? The white, iris, and pupil of an eye
> are part of the same eye. By your reasoning, they should be one shade.
>
Yes. And on the Shroud we cannot distinguished the eyes. In any
case they are probably closed. To differenciate any intensity
for the eyes we would need a very good picture. I am not sure
we have this precision commercialy available.
What is your point about that ?
> Explain the shading of the temples and ears by this reasoning, if the
> linen cloth was wrapped or draped around the head. Why are they shaded
> as they are -- and so as to provide a viewpoint from in front of face,
> rather than from where the cloth came around the side?
>
Once again the theory that the linen cloth is not straight must
be abandoned. Everybody agree on this.
> Since you've also said that this variation is proportional to
> distance, I invite you to explain why distance should affect number
> of "fibrils"...
The number of fibrils that makes the variation of colors is a FACT.
That these variations depends on the distance is another FACT.
Now if we try to explain those facts we must put aside the
methods that do not produce them. PAINTING IS ONE OF THEM.
So far many people have attempted to explain the formation
of the image, but their explanation do not match the recorded
FACTS about those details of the Shroud.
I am certainly not going to give an explanation as to how
it was produced, I have no explanation !
This is what my point is all about: the supposed explanations proposed
by Picknett & Prince, by Joe Nickell and some others do not
work. Their method do not explain these facts. But a large public buy
their explanation without verifying what has been published in
scientific papers. And that include SCICOP who cannot even consult
those scientific papers as if no such work had been done and just
following their blind faith in some already preconceived idea.
As for painting: it does not reproduce those details. It is a
technique that TOTALY lacks the precision required to reproduce
those details.
>
> And why the "focus" remains sharp on the more "distant" features, as
> with a picture formed by a lens (on retina or film), rather than the
> diffuse effect formed by an unlensed glow caught on film, cloth, or
> other surface. If you wrapped a photochemically treated cloth around
> a body-shaped shell with lights to make it glow, the light would go
> from body to cloth at all angles, not all in the same direction.
>
> There would be no focussed image, and certainly not a front-viewpoint.
Therefore the method and supposition you proposed is not
the right one.
Now I'll digress a bit here and take a different path.
To be coherent with the affirmation that the Shroud is authentic
we have to be coherent with the context.
The context don't call for a natural process as if a photography or a
painting of some chemical process. That does not mean that we should
not look in these matters. We should and we must lay down these
possibilities. We must also look into the possibility of an incredible
genius who use method beyond his time to construe a fraudulent relic.
But if all those possibilitis fail ? We simply can state that
we don't know how it was formed. And that is disturbing for a lot
of people who have try hard to explain the formation of the image.
There would be a final step ... that many don't want to cross
since that would be like a surrender ... but the context for
some is that it is a resurrected body that left this imprint.
In the annals of science that is not a well known process.
So it is not considered.
>
> If this truly was a linen cloth over the body of Jesus, not only did
> the cloth have to be stretched flat and horizontal above him (rather than
> wrapped around him) in order to have this perspective, but all the light
> (or whatever radiation left the imprint) had to go in parallel vertical
> rays, straight up from each body part to the corresponding part of the
> cloth, as if each cell were a laser pointing straight up. Otherwise
> some of the "nose" radiation would imprint the "cheek", "forehead", "eye",
> and "mouth" areas of the cloth, and you'd get a dull diffuse imprint with
> no sharply focussed features. Perhaps that was how this "miracle" happened.
>
Yes we agree here, it is as if all of this happened.
And with the levitation of the body ...
> But then why would shading be proportional to distance? Normal radiation
> in all directions diminishes in intensity with distance -- actually as the
> inverse square of distance -- precisely because it radiates at all angles.
>
> Coherent light, as in lasers, being parallel, diminishes more slowly,
> which is why earthbound lasers can hit the moon brightly enough to see.
> The difference in distance from, say, nosetip to eyelid, would produce
> no noticeable difference in intensity -- not if all the rays were parallel.
>
> So each "lasing" body cell would equally irradiate its part of the cloth.
>
> But then all you'd see on the Shroud would be one solid silhouette.
>
> Instead of this, you see a portrait. Not an imprint, contact or radiant.
Again you are using known natural processes.
If by known natural processes you can explained the imprint
of such an image with whatever positioning of artifacts, explain
it. You are certainly not constraint in any manner but you have
to explain the recorded facts that we can see on the Shroud.
That is my point which you endorsed all along: it is not explainable
by natural processes known to "us". Not even when the set up
is modified, wrapped body or not.
> I don't think the body of Jesus produced it any way at all.
>
> It was produced the way an artist might think the body of Jesus would
> produce it -- but the artist didn't think it all the way through.
Explain to us how an artist produced it given the known facts
about the Shroud.
> | Your supposition has no support on the basis that history has never
> | recorded the imprint of a dead body like the Shroud.
>
> Right! Which ought to have raised the first doubt in your mind.
You seem to follow once again your main train of thoughts: you
want to explain the imprint by a natural process.
It is the opposite once you consider all details. No such imprint
exist apart from this one. Is this a forgery ? Well, you take in
consideration the known microscopic details. And then you are
confronted with the facts that no known method works. So far you
conclude that it is not a natural process known to us. Would it be
known by a forger of XIV century ? That would be quite a steep claim !
Once again I ask you to explain how an artist would produce,
by painting or some other method, the following detail found
on the Shroud:
The variations of intensity of the color is not in the color
itself but rather in the NUMBER of linen fibrils colored !
That is one important detail that is a fact found on the Shroud.
Please explain how it can be done.
Mario Latendresse
D. Carter writes:
> Is the camera obscura technique what I saw on TV some time ago. It
> involved soaking the cloth in (among other things) urine and egg white
> and then exposing the cloth thru a card with a hole in it to an image.
> If so, does anyone have info on documentation for this technique-I'd
> love to read more about it.
You also need a lense. May be you are refering to some other technique but
for more information you could consult
http://www.petech.ac.za/shroud/news.htm
But once again the result obtained at that site do not handle
the microscopic detail found on the Shroud. It still is simply
a picture on a linen cloth (which given our knowledge and lenses
we can perform.)
TRM
Mario Latendresse wrote:
>
> D. Carter writes:
>
> > Is the camera obscura technique what I saw on TV some time ago. It
> > involved soaking the cloth in (among other things) urine and egg white
> > and then exposing the cloth thru a card with a hole in it to an image.
>
> for more information you could consult
Nope. A pinhole in the side of a box is all you need. The image of the
object will form on a white paper (or cloth) a few centimeters behind
the hole.
Mario Latendresse
TRM <Diogenes*antispam*@kear.tdsnet.com> writes:
This has indeed been done. In this can obviously be done using material
to us today.
BUT ONCE AGAIN: it looks similar but the microscopic details are not
similar.
It is like painting a rock with gold: it then looks like gold but the
inside is still not gold.
What is important is to look at the microscopic details: does the
intensity of colored obtained depends on the number of fibrils
that became 'dehydrated' ? This technic won't do it.
Moreover: is this not asking too much for medieval time,that
is some photographic technic ? This would indeed be unique !
Raven (J. Singleton)
Mario Latendresse (late...@raptor.IRO.UMontreal.CA) wrote:
| Raven (J. Singleton) writes:
[snip]
| What is indeed advanced is that Jesus did left an imprint while he was
| in this Shroud. As to how it was done, is another matter. And certainly
| the simple contact theory does not hold and it is not done as
| if 'totally wrapped'. More on this further down.
|
| > My point is that a cloth wrapped around a body, or a head, even if it
| > were imprinted with the image somehow, would not show the forward view
| > of a face-front photograph or painted portrait, as this Shroud does.
| >
| > Not only the center of the face is seen from the front, but also the
| > side of the head (temples, ears) is seen as if from the front.
|
| You are right that the image left is not coherent with the sheet
| still wrapped around the body. Moreover there are other simple
| facts that shows that the image left is not done while the body has
| a full gravity pull: otherwise the image of the back of the body
| would show a rather flat surface. This is rather obvious.
And brings us farther and farther away from the shroud-wrapped-body idea,
requiring miracle on top of miracle to make the story match the image.
Body and shroud both suspended without gravity? Why not claim that the
light just curved around so as to put each image where it was? Let all
the discrepancies be explained away, as "God made it so" -- suspending
not only gravity, but all other natural laws too, for the purpose.
Suspending disbelief becomes the least of the suspensions involved!
| Therefore, if anybody wants to support the assertion that the Shroud
| is authentic, the body imprint is done in a particular manner as if
| the body is in the air and the soudarion (sheet of linen) is stretched
| out (or as if everything occured that way).
While God the Father held the camera, and the Spirit acted as flashbulb.
[snip]
| > The perspective of the portrait is from a single position in front of
| > the face, the viewpoint of a camera or a painter.
| >
| > Conclusion: this is not a "Shroud's-eye view" of a body, not something
| > imprinted (by any method) from being wrapped or draped around a body.
| >
| > | This is your supposition that is wrong. That's all there is to it.
| >
| > Well, I've given my reasoning for my assertion. Give yours for yours.
|
| My reasoning so far about what you have proposed is to say the same thing
| as you are saying: it is not done as if the body is fully wrapped.
|
| BUT, it is still possible that the body of Jesus did left the image imprint
| while he is in the soudarion : for that everything as to go as if the body
| has no longer any weight and as if the sheet of linen is straight.
Oh, why limit God's capacity for miracles? He could form the image on a
cloth without even needing a body to actually be there as the original.
He could form the cloth itself! Just drop it down in 14th century Turin,
fully developed image and all! "Here's a souvenir snapshot of my Son."
No need to bother about anti-gravity bodies and floating shrouds, after all!
| > Including the shades IN the eye? The white, iris, and pupil of an eye
| > are part of the same eye. By your reasoning, they should be one shade.
|
| Yes. And on the Shroud we cannot distinguished the eyes. In any case they
| are probably closed. To differenciate any intensity for the eyes we would
| need a very good picture. I am not sure we have this precision commercialy
| available.
|
| What is your point about that ?
The last time I saw a photo, the shading IN the eyes was clearly visible.
But I suppose someone may have tampered with the photo... or maybe it was
another miracle, God fiddling a bit more with the details on the paper!
| > Explain the shading of the temples and ears by this reasoning, if the
| > linen cloth was wrapped or draped around the head. Why are they shaded
| > as they are -- and so as to provide a viewpoint from in front of face,
| > rather than from where the cloth came around the side?
|
| Once again the theory that the linen cloth is not straight must
| be abandoned. Everybody agree on this.
Then why not abandon the idea that his body was horizontal?
You've pointed out that the back wasn't flat... so, rather than presume it
was floating off the slab, fit what you see against the idea that the body
was vertical, no back against slab, but no anti-gravity needed either.
When a body's on its back, the flesh sags back. When someone's in zero-G,
the flesh bulges out. Either way looks different from what we see as a
"normal" face, vertical in gravity. What do we see in the Shroud's face?
[snip]
| I am certainly not going to give an explanation as to how
| it was produced, I have no explanation !
Other than floating body and floating shroud....
| > And why the "focus" remains sharp on the more "distant" features, as
| > with a picture formed by a lens (on retina or film), rather than the
| > diffuse effect formed by an unlensed glow caught on film, cloth, or
| > other surface. If you wrapped a photochemically treated cloth around
| > a body-shaped shell with lights to make it glow, the light would go
| > from body to cloth at all angles, not all in the same direction.
| >
| > There would be no focussed image, and certainly not a front-viewpoint.
|
| Therefore the method and supposition you proposed is not the right one.
Right, and the method was "radiation without a lens or similar focus", just
as the earlier method we disproved was any form of contact imprint.
You have just agreed to eliminating either kind of lensless production.
Which means a lens or similar focus (like pinhole) is all that's left,
either that of an artist's eye or that of a camera.
Nothing else would give this FOCUSSED image.
| Now I'll digress a bit here and take a different path.
|
| To be coherent with the affirmation that the Shroud is authentic
| we have to be coherent with the context.
|
| The context don't call for a natural process as if a photography or a
| painting of some chemical process. That does not mean that we should
| not look in these matters. We should and we must lay down these
| possibilities.
So here you are explicitly proposing a NON-natural (supernatural?) process.
| We must also look into the possibility of an incredible
| genius who use method beyond his time to construe a fraudulent relic.
Consider also the possibility that the intent was not fraud but an honest
illustration, as a well-carved crucifix may render a visually convincing
illusion of a human body writhing in agony on the cross -- yet no-one is
supposed to be fooled into believing that it literally is a human body,
it is only intended to convey the emotions involved in the Crucifixion.
| But if all those possibilitis fail ? We simply can state that
| we don't know how it was formed. And that is disturbing for a lot
| of people who have try hard to explain the formation of the image.
Unfortunately, some people say "We don't know how, AND THEREFORE it is
a miracle of God formed upon the very shroud of Christ himself!"
This is like the saucerians who say "No-one has been able to identify this
flying object, therefore it is an Unidentified Flying Object, and therefore
we identify it as a spacecraft from an alien planet!"
| There would be a final step ... that many don't want to cross
| since that would be like a surrender ... but the context for
| some is that it is a resurrected body that left this imprint.
Yep, there you go. "We don't know how", thus "it is a resurrected body".
Such a quick step from not knowing at all, to a very specific belief.
| In the annals of science that is not a well known process.
| So it is not considered.
No more than "a portrait painted by satyrs in the woods outside Turin"
was considered. To pick a supernatural origin at random, or whatever
particular myth best suits one's religious preference, is not science.
This is the same attitude which starts with claiming the world is about
six thousand years old, is faced with the existence of rocks older than
that, and concludes that God created the world with rocks instantly old...
in order to confound the unbelievers whom he foresaw examining them.
You are defending a religious belief, and claims of scientific evidence
are not only unnecessary but inappropriate. You would be better off to
simply say, "No matter what the evidence may show about its production,
God made it that way, to confound the unbelievers." If it works for rocks...
| > If this truly was a linen cloth over the body of Jesus, not only did
| > the cloth have to be stretched flat and horizontal above him (rather than
| > wrapped around him) in order to have this perspective, but all the light
| > (or whatever radiation left the imprint) had to go in parallel vertical
| > rays, straight up from each body part to the corresponding part of the
| > cloth, as if each cell were a laser pointing straight up. Otherwise
| > some of the "nose" radiation would imprint the "cheek", "forehead", "eye",
| > and "mouth" areas of the cloth, and you'd get a dull diffuse imprint with
| > no sharply focussed features. Perhaps that was how this "miracle" happened.
|
| Yes we agree here, it is as if all of this happened.
And as pointed out elsewhere, we get the SAME results with lens or pinhole.
| And with the levitation of the body ...
Or with the body vertical, so that no weight was on the back...
| > But then why would shading be proportional to distance? Normal radiation
| > in all directions diminishes in intensity with distance -- actually as the
| > inverse square of distance -- precisely because it radiates at all angles.
| >
| > Coherent light, as in lasers, being parallel, diminishes more slowly,
| > which is why earthbound lasers can hit the moon brightly enough to see.
| > The difference in distance from, say, nosetip to eyelid, would produce
| > no noticeable difference in intensity -- not if all the rays were parallel.
| >
| > So each "lasing" body cell would equally irradiate its part of the cloth.
| >
| > But then all you'd see on the Shroud would be one solid silhouette.
| >
| > Instead of this, you see a portrait. Not an imprint, contact or radiant.
|
| Again you are using known natural processes.
Ah, but (*unlike* coherent laser beams) the normal radiation-at-all-angles,
passing through a lens or pinhole, WOULD give a shaded picture, rather than
a solid silhouette. This too is a "natural" process! Light works this way!
| If by known natural processes you can explained the imprint
| of such an image with whatever positioning of artifacts, explain
| it. You are certainly not constraint in any manner but you have
| to explain the recorded facts that we can see on the Shroud.
See above.
| That is my point which you endorsed all along: it is not explainable
| by natural processes known to "us". Not even when the set up
| is modified, wrapped body or not.
Take a microscope to a newspaper photo. The shades of gray are not produced
by "intensity" of ink, but by how much of the paper is covered with it --
think of it as the number of "fibrils" of paper, on a very small scale,
and see if this sounds familiar. (I.e. the bigger the pixel "dot", the
more paper it covers, the blacker that area appears.)
| > I don't think the body of Jesus produced it any way at all.
| >
| > It was produced the way an artist might think the body of Jesus would
| > produce it -- but the artist didn't think it all the way through.
|
| Explain to us how an artist produced it given the known facts
| about the Shroud.
The known facts: focussed image, single viewpoint from in front.
Other than paintings (drawings etc) and photographs, we don't see these.
Radioactive stones left on film don't leave focussed images.
Contact imprints on cloth don't leave single-viewpoint projections.
Short of an eye-lens or camera-lens, this sort of image doesn't appear.
You yourself have to appeal to NON-natural processes for a cause.
Occam's Razor suggests a simpler solution: human agency.
You seem to find this repugnant, as if it challenges your faith in Christ
and the Resurrection. It doesn't. It leaves that as untouched as all
those other religious frauds, when exposed, leave faith untouched. I might
forge a million letters from any notable figure in history, yet my exposure
as a fraud would leave the historical existence of that figure untouched.
It is a mistake to transfer your faith from Christ to an artifact,
lest loss of faith in the artifact should weaken your faith in Christ.
The artifact didn't teach you, can't save you, has no interest in you.
Remember what Someone said about not worshipping any graven image.
-- Raven | "None so blind as will not see;
| Lord, what fools these mortals be!"
raven @ solaria.sol.net | -- The Gospel According to Puck
| Chapter 3, scene 2, verses 114-115
Raven (J. Singleton)
It will form farther away, as well. To get an image the same size as the
original, it would need to be the same distance from the pinhole (on one
side) as the original is (on the other side). As with a lens, the image
will be rotated 180 degrees, that is, turned upside-down and right-to-left.
Otherwise this has the same effect as those "parallel vertical laser beams",
in that there would be a one-to-one correspondence between original and
image, a focussed image rather than a diffuse blurred exposure.
Maybe God took a photograph?
In which case he could do it in the 14th century as easily as in the 1st,
just get the old gang together in Turin for a few tourist snapshots....
-- Raven | "None so blind as will not see;
| Lord, what fools these mortals be!"
raven @ solaria.sol.net | -- The Gospel According to Puck
| Act III, scene II, verses 114-115
Mario Latendresse
Raven writes,
> The last time I saw a photo, the shading IN the eyes was clearly visible.
>
I don't understand what you are trying to prove with this because the
eyes are not flat and the result you are trying to obtain would
not occured.
If there is a slight shading in the area of the eyes that remains
coherent with the fact that the eyes are probably closed and since the
rounded closed eye form a part of sphere it gives a slight
shading. What is wrong with this ?
> But I suppose someone may have tampered with the photo... or maybe it was
> another miracle, God fiddling a bit more with the details on the paper!
No since it is still coherent with the rest of the image it remains
proper to say that a slight variation of intensity occured in that
area.
> | Explain to us how an artist produced it given the known facts
> | about the Shroud.
>
> The known facts: focussed image, single viewpoint from in front.
>
> Other than paintings (drawings etc) and photographs, we don't see these.
>
> Radioactive stones left on film don't leave focussed images.
>
> Contact imprints on cloth don't leave single-viewpoint projections.
>
> Short of an eye-lens or camera-lens, this sort of image doesn't appear.
>
> You yourself have to appeal to NON-natural processes for a cause.
>
> Occam's Razor suggests a simpler solution: human agency.
You don't quite answer the question: your hypothesis is that
either it was painted or a photograph like image was created
in medieval time.
As for painting this does not work at all for several reasons,
which has been greatly explained by several authors. The image
is directionless, having no brush stroke, the image is superficial,
etc.
If you still believe that painting can reproduce it explain to US ALL
why there exist not even ONE copy of the Shroud using painting.
It is relatively easy to reproduce something similar to a Picasso or a
Magritte. The technic is reproducible. Why not the Shroud. Not only
the rendering is extremely difficult, but the physical result (the
fibrils modified as they are) is also extremely difficult to obtain.
So ONCE AGAIN, the question asked is : give some reason why there is
no copy performed by some artist. Is it too difficult to do ? What is
the reason ? By the way, I am ready to pay at least 20 000 US$ to have
such a copy.
If I were you I would abandonned the idea of a painting. Many
who have tried to reproduce it that way FAILED.
So there remains the photographic technic.
But how do you obtain this photographic image without a lens ?
Unless you want a lens to be used in the middle ages.
You see the big problem is that no satisfactory explanation to
reproduce it has been obtained so far. You may say 'do this' and
'do that' and you'll obtain it. But we have heard many theories
and many attempts that has failed. And that includs Picknett
& Prince method: their result does not have the microscopic
quality of the Shroud and lack the 3D information.
> It is a mistake to transfer your faith from Christ to an artifact,
> lest loss of faith in the artifact should weaken your faith in Christ.
Why mixing everything ? I don't think I transfer anything, I just
analyse the data and the results.
>
> The artifact didn't teach you, can't save you, has no interest in you.
>
> Remember what Someone said about not worshipping any graven image.
Who is talking about worshipping ? Where are you going ?
Yves Delage who studied the Shroud at the turn of the century
was an atheist and believed the Shroud not to be a forgery. I don't
think he was worshipping the Shroud !
You have mixed your emotion with objectives facts.
The problem is that: are you realising that you propose that
photographic techniques were well controled in the middle ages ? I
think this is an objective fact that has to be analysed and see if it
has any credit. That is one of my point. I don't think there is much
trace of photographic knowledge from the middle ages.
What is actualy done is to put side by side the hypothesis considered
and see which one cannot hold. So far the theory of a photographic
image of the middle ages is quite demanding. Moreover, even this very
technic has not been proven to give the result found on the Shroud.
Give ONE person who was able to reproduce today the Shroud with a
photographic technic that could be plausibly performed in the middle
ages.
Raven (J. Singleton)
Mario Latendresse (late...@raptor.IRO.UMontreal.CA) wrote:
| Raven writes,
| > The last time I saw a photo, the shading IN the eyes was clearly visible.
|
| I don't understand what you are trying to prove with this because the
| eyes are not flat and the result you are trying to obtain would
| not occured.
What? <puzzled> Would you please restate that in clear correct grammar?
| If there is a slight shading in the area of the eyes that remains
| coherent with the fact that the eyes are probably closed and since the
| rounded closed eye form a part of sphere it gives a slight
| shading. What is wrong with this ?
If the shading were "proportional to distance", then the eyes would have to
be concave rather than convex. The centers are the shade of the ears, the
edges are the shade of the forehead. If, however, this represented the
coloration of the eyes (pupils, irises, whites), which it appears to do,
then the shading on the shroud corresponds to shading on a human head in
the same one-to-one way that photographs (or, inversely, negatives) do.
[Much snipped, covering the same ground as before.]
| Give ONE person who was able to reproduce today the Shroud with a
| photographic technic that could be plausibly performed in the middle
| ages.
Ask TRM (Diog...@kear.tdsnet.com), or re-read his post discussing this.
-- Raven | "None so blind as will not see;
| Lord, what fools these mortals be!"
raven @ solaria.sol.net | -- The Gospel According to Puck
Mario Latendresse
Raven writes,
> If the shading were "proportional to distance", then the eyes would have to
> be concave rather than convex. The centers are the shade of the ears, the
> edges are the shade of the forehead. If, however, this represented the
> coloration of the eyes (pupils, irises, whites), which it appears to do,
> then the shading on the shroud corresponds to shading on a human head in
> the same one-to-one way that photographs (or, inversely, negatives) do.
I cannot make any sense out of this.
The irises, whites of the eyes !!!
The Shroud does not record at all the color of skin, of beard or anything
part of the body.
The shading found on the Shroud for the eyes shows a form likea sphere,
which is coherent with a eye.
> | Give ONE person who was able to reproduce today the Shroud with a
> | photographic technic that could be plausibly performed in the middle
> | ages.
>
> Ask TRM (Diog...@kear.tdsnet.com), or re-read his post discussing this.
You could simply mention which method.
This have been discussed in the scientific papers of the STURP and for
example the method proposed by Nickell has been shown not to work.