Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Shroud of Turin - is it a photographic negative?
19 views
Skip to first unread message
Peabody
May 31, 2012, 11:41:08 PM5/31/12
to
It seems to me that what's really interesting about the Shroud of
Turin is not the possibility that it's a miraculous image of you
know who, but rather the question of how the 14-15th century
forgers created the image.
We'll probably never know for sure, but I'm impressed by the theory
that it's the world's oldest surviving photographic negative, a
primitive photograph of a staged cadaver, made using a large camera
obscura, and probably a simple lens. Apparently, photo-sensitive
silver compounds were known during that period, and lenses
certainly were.
I hadn't realized it before, but the image on the Shroud is indeed
a negative image, so that if you take a picture of the Shroud with
a film camera, the image on the film negative is a positive image.
This was discovered in the late 1800's when the Shroud was first
photographed, and the glass plate negative looked like a print.
Well, it just seems like an interesting idea that matches what we
know about the Shroud.
Turin is not the possibility that it's a miraculous image of you
know who, but rather the question of how the 14-15th century
forgers created the image.
We'll probably never know for sure, but I'm impressed by the theory
that it's the world's oldest surviving photographic negative, a
primitive photograph of a staged cadaver, made using a large camera
obscura, and probably a simple lens. Apparently, photo-sensitive
silver compounds were known during that period, and lenses
certainly were.
I hadn't realized it before, but the image on the Shroud is indeed
a negative image, so that if you take a picture of the Shroud with
a film camera, the image on the film negative is a positive image.
This was discovered in the late 1800's when the Shroud was first
photographed, and the glass plate negative looked like a print.
Well, it just seems like an interesting idea that matches what we
know about the Shroud.
Mxsmanic
Jun 1, 2012, 12:46:11 AM6/1/12
to
Peabody writes:
> It seems to me that what's really interesting about the Shroud of
> Turin is not the possibility that it's a miraculous image of you
> know who, but rather the question of how the 14-15th century
> forgers created the image.
Once you take for granted that it must be the work of forgers, you've severely
> It seems to me that what's really interesting about the Shroud of
> Turin is not the possibility that it's a miraculous image of you
> know who, but rather the question of how the 14-15th century
> forgers created the image.
limited your ability to discover the truth of how it was created.
Wally
Jun 1, 2012, 1:22:06 AM6/1/12
to
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 06:46:11 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
It was God who created the Shroud of Turin.
But which God?
W
wrote:
But which God?
W
bugbear
Jun 1, 2012, 5:07:55 AM6/1/12
to
Peabody wrote:
>
> I hadn't realized it before, but the image on the Shroud is indeed
> a negative image
Sheltered life much?
>
> I hadn't realized it before, but the image on the Shroud is indeed
> a negative image
BugBear
Mxsmanic
Jun 1, 2012, 6:53:23 AM6/1/12
to
Wally writes:
> It was God who created the Shroud of Turin.
That is just as limiting. Nobody knows how the shroud image was created, and
> It was God who created the Shroud of Turin.
that's what should be kept in mind while investigating it.
bugbear
Jun 1, 2012, 6:56:18 AM6/1/12
to
BugBear
RichA
Jun 1, 2012, 8:26:24 AM6/1/12
to
small. Used in eyeglasses. Could any have rendered an image that
large? I doubt it.
Whisky-dave
Jun 1, 2012, 8:49:38 AM6/1/12
to
it was the fist photographic image produced by Leonardo da Vinci.
He did it by request of a Pope after the original shroud was stolen
(the original of course was really the image of Jesus according to the
catholic church)
so Leonardo was asked to create a new fake replacement.
He used a dead body on the cloth but the face/head didn;t work
and if you loko closely you'll notice that the body & head don;t lok
quite right the
width hieght ratio amonst other things, and it was though that the
head was an almost
self portrait 'painted' with light by Leonardo
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5706640/Turin-Shroud-is-face-of-Leonardo-da-Vinci.html#
not sure how true it is but it does seem plausable, far more than it
is jesus anyway.
Whisky-dave
Jun 1, 2012, 8:52:32 AM6/1/12
to
to get the outline details then 'painted' the rest with blood.
bugbear
Jun 1, 2012, 10:09:56 AM6/1/12
to
Whisky-dave wrote:
>
> I saw a documentary on it a few years ago the theroy was that
> it was the fist photographic image produced by Leonardo da Vinci.
> He did it by request of a Pope after the original shroud was stolen
> (the original of course was really the image of Jesus according to the
> catholic church)
Was the documentary on Fox?
>
> I saw a documentary on it a few years ago the theroy was that
> it was the fist photographic image produced by Leonardo da Vinci.
> He did it by request of a Pope after the original shroud was stolen
> (the original of course was really the image of Jesus according to the
> catholic church)
BugBear
Whisky-dave
Jun 1, 2012, 10:16:01 AM6/1/12
to
>
> BugBear
DanP
Jun 1, 2012, 10:18:19 AM6/1/12
to
If it is not a forgery it can be lots of other things, image of Christ a very improbable one.
DanP
bugbear
Jun 1, 2012, 10:36:14 AM6/1/12
to
:-)
BugBear
Frank S
Jun 1, 2012, 10:37:21 AM6/1/12
to
"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
news:Yvmdna8GLYGpUFXS...@brightview.co.uk...
-Richard M. Nixon, 37th president of US (1913-1994)
bugbear
Jun 1, 2012, 10:56:27 AM6/1/12
to
DanP wrote:
> On Friday, 1 June 2012 11:56:18 UTC+1, bugbear wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> Peabody writes:
>>>
>>>> It seems to me that what's really interesting about the Shroud of
>>>> Turin is not the possibility that it's a miraculous image of you
>>>> know who, but rather the question of how the 14-15th century
>>>> forgers created the image.
>>>
>>> Once you take for granted that it must be the work of forgers, you've severely
>>> limited your ability to discover the truth of how it was created.
>>
>> Not in the case where it WAS forgers ;-)
>>
>> BugBear
>
> I see his point, you cannot start proving anything if you assume something.
Scientific method: start with a hypothesis,
> On Friday, 1 June 2012 11:56:18 UTC+1, bugbear wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> Peabody writes:
>>>
>>>> It seems to me that what's really interesting about the Shroud of
>>>> Turin is not the possibility that it's a miraculous image of you
>>>> know who, but rather the question of how the 14-15th century
>>>> forgers created the image.
>>>
>>> Once you take for granted that it must be the work of forgers, you've severely
>>> limited your ability to discover the truth of how it was created.
>>
>> Not in the case where it WAS forgers ;-)
>>
>> BugBear
>
> I see his point, you cannot start proving anything if you assume something.
and attempt to prove/disprove it.
BugBear
Savageduck
Jun 1, 2012, 11:06:49 AM6/1/12
to
--
Regards,
Savageduck
isw
Jun 1, 2012, 12:58:03 PM6/1/12
to
In article <Yvmdna8GLYGpUFXS...@brightview.co.uk>,
If "documentary" means that the information in it is true, then Fox
doesn't do those ...
Isaac
doesn't do those ...
Isaac
Mxsmanic
Jun 1, 2012, 2:50:34 PM6/1/12
to
bugbear writes:
> Not in the case where it WAS forgers ;-)
Nobody knows how the image was created.
> Not in the case where it WAS forgers ;-)
Mxsmanic
Jun 1, 2012, 2:52:33 PM6/1/12
to
bugbear writes:
> Scientific method: start with a hypothesis, and attempt to prove/disprove it.
One reason why the scientific method isn't perfect.
> Scientific method: start with a hypothesis, and attempt to prove/disprove it.
nick c
Jun 1, 2012, 5:18:05 PM6/1/12
to
longer after saying that.
Laszlo Lebrun
Jun 1, 2012, 5:33:58 PM6/1/12
to
On 01/06/2012 16:56, bugbear wrote:
> Scientific method: start with a hypothesis...
Nikon or Canon?
;-)
> Scientific method: start with a hypothesis...
Nikon or Canon?
;-)
Message has been deleted
J. Clarke
Jun 1, 2012, 6:20:26 PM6/1/12
to
In article <f8a6dafa-1dec-4225...@googlegroups.com>,
dan....@hotmail.com says...
First step, Dan, show that it's more than 500 years old. The only
evidence available says that it's that age and not 2000 years old. That
pretty much rules out its having had anything to with Christ.
dan....@hotmail.com says...
evidence available says that it's that age and not 2000 years old. That
pretty much rules out its having had anything to with Christ.
Mxsmanic
Jun 1, 2012, 6:55:29 PM6/1/12
to
Laszlo Lebrun writes:
> Nikon or Canon?
Canon has already been established.
> Nikon or Canon?
Canon has already been established.
Savageduck
Jun 1, 2012, 9:14:56 PM6/1/12
to
to keep in touch with technology when it came to dealing with relics.
;-)
< http://www.collection-appareils.fr/gamma/images/Perla_2.jpg >
...but more likely one of these fine pieces:
< http://www.woodandbrass.co.uk/images/0094_8.jpg >
< http://www.woodandbrass.co.uk/images/0094_9.jpg >
--
Regards,
Savageduck
isw
Jun 1, 2012, 11:09:05 PM6/1/12
to
In article <jqbfoo$vi4$1...@dont-email.me>,
watchmaker <watch...@gmx.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <20120601-0...@news.astraweb.com>,
> I always thought the key invention/discovery was hyposulfite of soda to
> fix the silver image. Certainly the Camera Obscura could have been used,
> and even a pinhole rather than a lens would have sufficed. But if it was
> a silver-based process some sort of fixer would have been necessary. And
> given how hard it is to get all the fixer out of fiber-based paper,
> there would have to be at least _some_ left in the Shroud...
And some silver, which there isn't any of in the shroud material ...
Isaac
watchmaker <watch...@gmx.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <20120601-0...@news.astraweb.com>,
> fix the silver image. Certainly the Camera Obscura could have been used,
> and even a pinhole rather than a lens would have sufficed. But if it was
> a silver-based process some sort of fixer would have been necessary. And
> given how hard it is to get all the fixer out of fiber-based paper,
> there would have to be at least _some_ left in the Shroud...
And some silver, which there isn't any of in the shroud material ...
Isaac
Peabody
Jun 2, 2012, 12:44:11 AM6/2/12
to
Whisky-dave says...
> I saw a documentary on it a few years ago the theroy was
> that it was the fist photographic image produced by
> Leonardo da Vinci.
I think I found that documentary. It's a 6-part file on
Youtube. Here's part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sFmAQcekbY
The "photograph" explanation, including a modern
replication, is in part 5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp7687Mk4yI
Well I don't know about the Leonardo connection, but it
appears this photographic explanation is at least credible.
> I saw a documentary on it a few years ago the theroy was
> that it was the fist photographic image produced by
> Leonardo da Vinci.
Youtube. Here's part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sFmAQcekbY
The "photograph" explanation, including a modern
replication, is in part 5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp7687Mk4yI
Well I don't know about the Leonardo connection, but it
appears this photographic explanation is at least credible.
DanP
Jun 2, 2012, 11:46:27 AM6/2/12
to
Was it made by accident or by someone who had no intention to present it as image of Christ? That would mean it was not made to be a forgery.
DanP
Savageduck
Jun 2, 2012, 1:07:24 PM6/2/12
to
haired, Florentine guy the European artists used as a model for Christ
in all their paintings.
In all likelihood the Christ who walked the shores of the Sea of
Galilee was a short squat, swarthy guy who looked more like Yassir
Arafat than Fabio. That would make the Shroud of Turin a case of
wishful thinking on the part of the relic purveyors, an accident, or a
pure con job.
The European mind of medieval and renaissance Italy was conditioned
into accepting the presentation of any image resembling the European
art world's concept of Christ as a true depiction of the man. They so
wanted their "Lord & Saviour" to be attractive and familiar, in a
European sense, not appearing to be a typical Middle Eastern Semite.
They certainly wouldn't want Jesus appearing in anyway Jewish.
They also had a superstitious belief in the mystic powers of all, and
any items presented as relics. So my vote on the "Shroud of Turin"
leans towards it being an accidental discovery, with absolutely nothing
to do with Christ, leveraged to become yet another relic con.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Mxsmanic
Jun 2, 2012, 1:34:10 PM6/2/12
to
Savageduck writes:
> So my vote on the "Shroud of Turin"
> leans towards it being an accidental discovery, with absolutely nothing
> to do with Christ, leveraged to become yet another relic con.
Okay, but whoever is depicted in the image, how was it produced?
> So my vote on the "Shroud of Turin"
> leans towards it being an accidental discovery, with absolutely nothing
> to do with Christ, leveraged to become yet another relic con.
Eric Stevens
Jun 2, 2012, 7:12:46 PM6/2/12
to
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 12:53:23 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
But then one can still come up with a hypothesis such as that the
shroud was created by forgers using an early photographic technique.
>Wally writes:
>
>> It was God who created the Shroud of Turin.
>
>That is just as limiting. Nobody knows how the shroud image was created, and
>that's what should be kept in mind while investigating it.
wrote:
But then one can still come up with a hypothesis such as that the
shroud was created by forgers using an early photographic technique.
>Wally writes:
>
>> It was God who created the Shroud of Turin.
>
>That is just as limiting. Nobody knows how the shroud image was created, and
>that's what should be kept in mind while investigating it.
Savageduck
Jun 2, 2012, 7:31:08 PM6/2/12
to
wrapped around the corpse, which might have been prepared with a
liberal use of fragrant oils and/or other exotic potions used in
funeral customs of the time.
Why do so many want this hoax to be a miracle?
...and Eric, you should know better than to top post. It ruins the
chronology and attributes of the thread.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Peabody
Jun 2, 2012, 7:42:44 PM6/2/12
to
Mxsmanic says...
> Okay, but whoever is depicted in the image, how was it
> produced?
Well that's the interesting question.
One thing we know is that the image is coherent and
undistorted when the cloth is stretched out flat. I think
that means that the cloth must have been stretched out
flat, and not draped over a body, when the image was
created. If it had been draped, there would be "side-view"
images of things like the ears, but there are none of those.
And if it had been formed when draped over a body, the image
would be distorted when stretched out flat. It's exactly the
kind of undistorted image you get with a camera. It looks
just like it would look if you were standing some distance
from the body looking at it.
So the only ways we know of (I mean non-miraculous ways) of
creating an image like that is either drawing it or making a
photograph. It could be a drawing, but you know, if you
were going to draw it, why would you choose the extremely
difficult option of drawing a negative image, particularly
since that also makes it very hard to make sense of when
viewing it?
There's no way to know for sure unless somebody uncovers a
document from that period describing how it was done. But
it just seems to me that a primitive photograph is what fits
the facts the best.
Of course if it's a miraculous image, no explanation is
necessary.
> Okay, but whoever is depicted in the image, how was it
> produced?
One thing we know is that the image is coherent and
undistorted when the cloth is stretched out flat. I think
that means that the cloth must have been stretched out
flat, and not draped over a body, when the image was
created. If it had been draped, there would be "side-view"
images of things like the ears, but there are none of those.
And if it had been formed when draped over a body, the image
would be distorted when stretched out flat. It's exactly the
kind of undistorted image you get with a camera. It looks
just like it would look if you were standing some distance
from the body looking at it.
So the only ways we know of (I mean non-miraculous ways) of
creating an image like that is either drawing it or making a
photograph. It could be a drawing, but you know, if you
were going to draw it, why would you choose the extremely
difficult option of drawing a negative image, particularly
since that also makes it very hard to make sense of when
viewing it?
There's no way to know for sure unless somebody uncovers a
document from that period describing how it was done. But
it just seems to me that a primitive photograph is what fits
the facts the best.
Of course if it's a miraculous image, no explanation is
necessary.
Mxsmanic
Jun 2, 2012, 7:46:31 PM6/2/12
to
Eric Stevens writes:
> But then one can still come up with a hypothesis such as that the
> shroud was created by forgers using an early photographic technique.
An early photographic technique is almost as extreme a hypothesis as divine
> But then one can still come up with a hypothesis such as that the
> shroud was created by forgers using an early photographic technique.
intervention.
The theory I've heard that seemed plausible is flash photolysis, but there
weren't any sources of flash photolysis back then any more than there were
rolls of Provia.
Savageduck
Jun 2, 2012, 8:03:41 PM6/2/12
to
better way to go.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin >
< http://www.skepdic.com/shroud.html >
< http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/christmas2011editorial.pdf >
< http://www.shroud.com/ >
Personally, I remain a skeptic heretic.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
Jun 2, 2012, 8:29:02 PM6/2/12
to
different news outlets.
A read of this document will put the flash theory and some of the
latest on the Shroud into perspective.
Here is one pertinent part:
"But what exactly did the scientific papers mentioned in the news
articles actually say? Here is a quote from the Vatican Insider, one of
the first outlets to publish the story on December 14th (2011) that
reports the basic facts correctly:
ENEA, the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable
Economic Development, has published a report on five years of
experiments conducted in the ENEA center of Frascati on the
"shroud-like coloring of linen fabrics by far ultraviolet radiation."
"Simply put: we tried to understand how the Shroud of Turin was
imprinted by an image so special that it constitutes its charm, and
poses a great and very radical challenge, "to identify the physical and
chemical processes capable of generating a color similar to that of the
image on the Shroud."
Fair enough, and very clearly stated. The researchers attempted to find
a means of coloring the surface of linen fibers using 21st century
technology, in an effort to better understand the actual image
properties on the Shroud itself. To that end, they used pulsed xenon
excimer lasers, frequently used in human medical applications, and were
able to ablate the surface of linen fibers to create on their test
samples coloration similar to the color of the Shroud image. However,
they also admitted there were no excimer lasers 700 or 2000 years ago.
They did NOT say this was how the Shroud's image was formed."
< http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/christmas2011editorial.pdf >
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Eric Stevens
Jun 2, 2012, 8:31:34 PM6/2/12
to
Put it down to the dopyness of jet lag. I'm still recovering from
flying from Switzerland to New Zealand. It's my second day home now,
and I'm feeling a bit better.
I was responding to Mxmanic's comment that "Once you take for granted
that it must be the work of forgers, you've severely limited your
ability to discover the truth of how it was created". I agree with the
"Once you have taken it for granted" bit but that doesn't mean that
you destroy your ability to find the truth once you put up a
hypothesis.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Savageduck
Jun 2, 2012, 8:41:33 PM6/2/12
to
< http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/index0.html >
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Rich
Jun 2, 2012, 8:41:39 PM6/2/12
to
Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote in news:7c5fd2fa-ecc0-40fe-
85c4-2b8...@a16g2000vby.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 1, 1:26 pm, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> small. Used in eyeglasses. Could any have rendered an image that
>> large? I doubt it.
>
> I heard he hung the body up at the window and used the camera obscura
> to get the outline details then 'painted' the rest with blood.
>
If the shroud is anything, it might be akin to a charcoal rubbing.
85c4-2b8...@a16g2000vby.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 1, 1:26 pm, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 31, 11:41 pm, Peabody <waybackNO784SPA...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > It seems to me that what's really interesting about the Shroud of
>> > Turin is not the possibility that it's a miraculous image of you
>> > know who, but rather the question of how the 14-15th century
>> > forgers created the image.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > It seems to me that what's really interesting about the Shroud of
>> > Turin is not the possibility that it's a miraculous image of you
>> > know who, but rather the question of how the 14-15th century
>> > forgers created the image.
>>
>> > We'll probably never know for sure, but I'm impressed by the theory
>> > that it's the world's oldest surviving photographic negative, a
>> > primitive photograph of a staged cadaver, made using a large camera
>> > obscura, and probably a simple lens. Apparently, photo-sensitive
>> > silver compounds were known during that period, and lenses
>> > certainly were.
>>
>> > I hadn't realized it before, but the image on the Shroud is indeed
>> > a negative image, so that if you take a picture of the Shroud with
>> > a film camera, the image on the film negative is a positive image.
>> > This was discovered in the late 1800's when the Shroud was first
>> > photographed, and the glass plate negative looked like a print.
>>
>> > Well, it just seems like an interesting idea that matches what we
>> > know about the Shroud.
>>
>> We know lenses during that period were all simple, single-element and
>> > that it's the world's oldest surviving photographic negative, a
>> > primitive photograph of a staged cadaver, made using a large camera
>> > obscura, and probably a simple lens. Apparently, photo-sensitive
>> > silver compounds were known during that period, and lenses
>> > certainly were.
>>
>> > I hadn't realized it before, but the image on the Shroud is indeed
>> > a negative image, so that if you take a picture of the Shroud with
>> > a film camera, the image on the film negative is a positive image.
>> > This was discovered in the late 1800's when the Shroud was first
>> > photographed, and the glass plate negative looked like a print.
>>
>> > Well, it just seems like an interesting idea that matches what we
>> > know about the Shroud.
>>
>> small. Used in eyeglasses. Could any have rendered an image that
>> large? I doubt it.
>
> I heard he hung the body up at the window and used the camera obscura
> to get the outline details then 'painted' the rest with blood.
>
If the shroud is anything, it might be akin to a charcoal rubbing.
Peabody
Jun 2, 2012, 10:18:31 PM6/2/12
to
isw says...
>> I always thought the key invention/discovery was
>> hyposulfite of soda to fix the silver image. Certainly
>> the Camera Obscura could have been used, and even a
>> pinhole rather than a lens would have sufficed. But if
>> it was a silver-based process some sort of fixer would
>> have been necessary. And given how hard it is to get
>> all the fixer out of fiber-based paper, there would
>> have to be at least _some_ left in the Shroud...
> And some silver, which there isn't any of in the shroud
> material ...
There is no silver that accounts for the image. In fact,
there is no foreign substance of any kind on the shroud that
accounts for the image - no charcoal, no paint, no stain, no
nothing. The image lies in the surface of the linen fibers.
In the dark areas the surface structure of the fibers has
been damaged, or altered in some way, so that the light
reflectance/absorption characteristics of the fiber surface
is different from the non-image areas of the shroud.
So the photography explanation goes like this: In the dark,
the photosensitive chemical is prepared and applied to the
fabric. Then the exposure is made, with the result that the
chemical reaction resulting from exposure damages or alters
the fabric surface in the areas where the light falls.
Then, still in the dark, the fabric is washed thoroughly, so
that both the exposed and unexposed chemical is removed,
leaving only the surface-modified fibers. So it's not
photographic in the modern sense where silver salts
are fixed and remain behind to form the image. But it is
photographic in that the fiber surfaces are altered where
the light hit.
Based on the YouTube video I linked to in another post, this
process has now been demonstrated (duplicated) using
materials known to be available in the 1500's, and negative
images like that on the shroud were produced having the same
surface-damage properties with no residue left behind.
>> I always thought the key invention/discovery was
>> hyposulfite of soda to fix the silver image. Certainly
>> the Camera Obscura could have been used, and even a
>> pinhole rather than a lens would have sufficed. But if
>> it was a silver-based process some sort of fixer would
>> have been necessary. And given how hard it is to get
>> all the fixer out of fiber-based paper, there would
>> have to be at least _some_ left in the Shroud...
> And some silver, which there isn't any of in the shroud
> material ...
there is no foreign substance of any kind on the shroud that
accounts for the image - no charcoal, no paint, no stain, no
nothing. The image lies in the surface of the linen fibers.
In the dark areas the surface structure of the fibers has
been damaged, or altered in some way, so that the light
reflectance/absorption characteristics of the fiber surface
is different from the non-image areas of the shroud.
So the photography explanation goes like this: In the dark,
the photosensitive chemical is prepared and applied to the
fabric. Then the exposure is made, with the result that the
chemical reaction resulting from exposure damages or alters
the fabric surface in the areas where the light falls.
Then, still in the dark, the fabric is washed thoroughly, so
that both the exposed and unexposed chemical is removed,
leaving only the surface-modified fibers. So it's not
photographic in the modern sense where silver salts
are fixed and remain behind to form the image. But it is
photographic in that the fiber surfaces are altered where
the light hit.
Based on the YouTube video I linked to in another post, this
process has now been demonstrated (duplicated) using
materials known to be available in the 1500's, and negative
images like that on the shroud were produced having the same
surface-damage properties with no residue left behind.
Peabody
Jun 2, 2012, 10:40:59 PM6/2/12
to
Savageduck says...
> ...or it was just a stain impressed on the fabric when
> the shroud was wrapped around the corpse, which might
> have been prepared with a liberal use of fragrant oils
> and/or other exotic potions used in funeral customs of
> the time.
It can't be that, or any other method involving wrapping or
draping the cloth. Any image produced in that way would not
look normal when the cloth is laid out flat. And the image
on the shroud is coherent, normal and undistorted when the
cloth is laid out flat.
Think of it this way. If you lie down on your back and lay
cloth over your face, any contact-based image would contain
a side view of your ears. And when you lay that cloth out
flat, your ears, as seen from the side, would apprear on the
cloth way out to the side of the front of your face. It
would look really goofy. But there isn't a hint of that
kind of thing in the shroud image. There is no image of the
ears, or the side of the face at all, except as it would be
seen from the front. The cloth just couldn't have been
wrapped or draped when the image was made.
So we have a three-dimensional body/object, and an
essentially perfect two-dimensional image of it on the
cloth, and we know the cloth must have been laid out flat
when the image was created. As I said in another post, I
only know of two non-miraculous ways of doing that - draw
it, or photograph it.
> Why do so many want this hoax to be a miracle?
I don't know. Even believers must know that most relics are
fakes. And, you know, the church has never actually claimed
it was genuine. But clearly a lot of people still insist on
the miraculous explanation, and if carbon dating says the
linen only goes back to the 1300's, then it just must be
wrong.
The only potentially nearly-miraculous thing I see in the
shroud is the possibility that photography actually might
go back to the 1500's, which I think would be pretty awesome.
> ...or it was just a stain impressed on the fabric when
> the shroud was wrapped around the corpse, which might
> have been prepared with a liberal use of fragrant oils
> and/or other exotic potions used in funeral customs of
> the time.
draping the cloth. Any image produced in that way would not
look normal when the cloth is laid out flat. And the image
on the shroud is coherent, normal and undistorted when the
cloth is laid out flat.
Think of it this way. If you lie down on your back and lay
cloth over your face, any contact-based image would contain
a side view of your ears. And when you lay that cloth out
flat, your ears, as seen from the side, would apprear on the
cloth way out to the side of the front of your face. It
would look really goofy. But there isn't a hint of that
kind of thing in the shroud image. There is no image of the
ears, or the side of the face at all, except as it would be
seen from the front. The cloth just couldn't have been
wrapped or draped when the image was made.
So we have a three-dimensional body/object, and an
essentially perfect two-dimensional image of it on the
cloth, and we know the cloth must have been laid out flat
when the image was created. As I said in another post, I
only know of two non-miraculous ways of doing that - draw
it, or photograph it.
> Why do so many want this hoax to be a miracle?
fakes. And, you know, the church has never actually claimed
it was genuine. But clearly a lot of people still insist on
the miraculous explanation, and if carbon dating says the
linen only goes back to the 1300's, then it just must be
wrong.
The only potentially nearly-miraculous thing I see in the
shroud is the possibility that photography actually might
go back to the 1500's, which I think would be pretty awesome.
GMAN
Jun 3, 2012, 11:03:44 PM6/3/12
to
In article <sn7hs757opfrab7u4...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Wally writes:
>
>> It was God who created the Shroud of Turin.
>
>That is just as limiting. Nobody knows how the shroud image was created, and
>that's what should be kept in mind while investigating it.
Well we do know it wasn't in the year 33 AD !!!!
>Wally writes:
>
>> It was God who created the Shroud of Turin.
>
>That is just as limiting. Nobody knows how the shroud image was created, and
>that's what should be kept in mind while investigating it.
Mxsmanic
Jun 4, 2012, 12:09:29 PM6/4/12
to
GMAN writes:
> Well we do know it wasn't in the year 33 AD !!!!
We have reason to believe. We don't know for sure.
> Well we do know it wasn't in the year 33 AD !!!!
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Jun 4, 2012, 7:42:16 AM6/4/12
to
> Informed opinion rather than belief based on blind faith is always a
> better way to go.
Not if they tend to torture you or hang you or burn you alife
> better way to go.
for disagreeing with their absolute truth.
-Wolfgang
Savageduck
Jun 4, 2012, 4:12:50 PM6/4/12
to
On 2012-06-04 04:42:16 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Oh! I keep forgetting, there are the crazy religious nuts who would
want to do that.
...even today.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
want to do that.
...even today.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Whisky-dave
Jun 7, 2012, 8:53:54 AM6/7/12
to
On Jun 3, 12:46 am, Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Eric Stevens writes:
> > But then one can still come up with a hypothesis such as that the
> > shroud was created by forgers using an early photographic technique.
>
> An early photographic technique is almost as extreme a hypothesis as divine
> intervention.
Why ?
> Eric Stevens writes:
> > But then one can still come up with a hypothesis such as that the
> > shroud was created by forgers using an early photographic technique.
>
> An early photographic technique is almost as extreme a hypothesis as divine
> intervention.
>
> The theory I've heard that seemed plausible is flash photolysis, but there
> weren't any sources of flash photolysis back then any more than there were
> rolls of Provia.
reason we use flash
to replace natural light. My fist deleve into photography required me
to place an old negative
on a peice of paper and expose ot to the sun for about 30 min.
This was my frist photo kit, it was a toy, no enlarger, no optics, no
camera.
Poeple have done a similar thing on the beach where they have white
bits
where their costumes were, you can't easily get that effect even with
todays flashguns.
Whisky-dave
Jun 7, 2012, 9:26:44 AM6/7/12
to
it to others
that aren't believers.
Few believers even want to adress the problem of Jesuses hair eye and
skin colour.
From what I've heard of where he was born it wasn;t exactly common to
have blonde hair and blue eyes
but perhaps he did get them from his fathers side who was obviously
English :-D
> And, you know, the church has never actually claimed
> it was genuine.
time.
> But clearly a lot of people still insist on
> the miraculous explanation, and if carbon dating says the
> linen only goes back to the 1300's, then it just must be
> wrong.
the shroud was damaged by fire
and some of the shroud was repaired/replaced after the fire and the
frist carbon dating they were only allowed to
date small corner.
>
> The only potentially nearly-miraculous thing I see in the
> shroud is the possibility that photography actually might
> go back to the 1500's, which I think would be pretty awesome.
believe it was the shroud
Jesus was wrapped in. I still don't think the head and the body are
the same person either.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Jun 7, 2012, 1:16:47 PM6/7/12
to
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2012-06-04 04:42:16 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg
> On 2012-06-04 04:42:16 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>> Informed opinion rather than belief based on blind faith is always a
>>> better way to go.
>> Not if they tend to torture you or hang you or burn you alife
>> for disagreeing with their absolute truth.
>>> Informed opinion rather than belief based on blind faith is always a
>>> better way to go.
>> Not if they tend to torture you or hang you or burn you alife
>> for disagreeing with their absolute truth.
> Oh! I keep forgetting, there are the crazy religious nuts who would
> want to do that.
> ...even today.
Ah, some of the religious nuts don't give a fig for religion,
> want to do that.
> ...even today.
they only care for power. Just be someone who believes abortion
can be a valid choice, or that love between persons of the same
gender is OK, or happen to be born with the wrong gender (and have
that corrected), or have the wrong skin colour or ethnicity ...
and meet the wrong people. And that's just the civilized US of A.
-Wolfgang
Eric Stevens
Jun 7, 2012, 4:20:00 PM6/7/12
to
"Blonds are also found in Turkey, especially in the northern
(Caucasus) and western (European) parts of the country. Blonds are
also found in parts of southwest and northern Iran, especially in
the Caspian and Caucasus provinces. Blonds are also found in the
Levant, Israel (especially among the Ashkenazi), in western Syria,
in northern Iraq, and in the Palestinian territories. Jordan and
Lebanon have a frequency of blonds as well. Blond hair is also a
common sight among Berbers of North Africa, especially in the Rif
and Kabyle region and also among Maghreb Arabs of Berber descent."
>
>> And, you know, the church has never actually claimed
>> it was genuine.
>I think they have althopugh it does depend on which church and at what
>time.
>
>> But clearly a lot of people still insist on
>> the miraculous explanation, and if carbon dating says the
>> linen only goes back to the 1300's, then it just must be
>> wrong.
>
>The problem there is what linin did they test, it was well known that
>the shroud was damaged by fire
>and some of the shroud was repaired/replaced after the fire and the
>frist carbon dating they were only allowed to
>date small corner.
>
>>
>> The only potentially nearly-miraculous thing I see in the
>> shroud is the possibility that photography actually might
>> go back to the 1500's, which I think would be pretty awesome.
>
>Yes, for that reasonm I'm still curious as to how it was done, I don;t
>believe it was the shroud
>Jesus was wrapped in. I still don't think the head and the body are
>the same person either.
Regards,
>> And, you know, the church has never actually claimed
>> it was genuine.
>I think they have althopugh it does depend on which church and at what
>time.
>
>> But clearly a lot of people still insist on
>> the miraculous explanation, and if carbon dating says the
>> linen only goes back to the 1300's, then it just must be
>> wrong.
>
>The problem there is what linin did they test, it was well known that
>the shroud was damaged by fire
>and some of the shroud was repaired/replaced after the fire and the
>frist carbon dating they were only allowed to
>date small corner.
>
>>
>> The only potentially nearly-miraculous thing I see in the
>> shroud is the possibility that photography actually might
>> go back to the 1500's, which I think would be pretty awesome.
>
>Yes, for that reasonm I'm still curious as to how it was done, I don;t
>believe it was the shroud
>Jesus was wrapped in. I still don't think the head and the body are
>the same person either.
Eric Stevens
Whisky-dave
Jun 8, 2012, 8:31:08 AM6/8/12
to
>
> "Blonds are also found in Turkey, especially in the northern
> (Caucasus) and western (European) parts of the country. Blonds are
> also found in parts of southwest and northern Iran, especially in
> the Caspian and Caucasus provinces. Blonds are also found in the
> Levant, Israel (especially among the Ashkenazi), in western Syria,
> in northern Iraq, and in the Palestinian territories. Jordan and
> Lebanon have a frequency of blonds as well. Blond hair is also a
> common sight among Berbers of North Africa, especially in the Rif
> and Kabyle region and also among Maghreb Arabs of Berber descent."
Yes I know blondes exist or should I say existed but I would have
> "Blonds are also found in Turkey, especially in the northern
> (Caucasus) and western (European) parts of the country. Blonds are
> also found in parts of southwest and northern Iran, especially in
> the Caspian and Caucasus provinces. Blonds are also found in the
> Levant, Israel (especially among the Ashkenazi), in western Syria,
> in northern Iraq, and in the Palestinian territories. Jordan and
> Lebanon have a frequency of blonds as well. Blond hair is also a
> common sight among Berbers of North Africa, especially in the Rif
> and Kabyle region and also among Maghreb Arabs of Berber descent."
thought someone would have noticed
and actually mentioedn the skin, eye, or hair colour if it was
unusual, most people describe others
via differnces and there's nothing in the Bible of any description
which I find a litte odd,
so I assume Jesus was pretty much like everyone else cosmetically.
Of courdse he could have had an extra eye the Bible hasn;t said he
only had two eyes ;-)
Joe Kotroczo
Jun 8, 2012, 4:02:36 PM6/8/12
to
On 01/06/2012 04:41, Peabody wrote:
> It seems to me that what's really interesting about the Shroud of
> Turin is not the possibility that it's a miraculous image of you
> know who, but rather the question of how the 14-15th century
> forgers created the image.
>
> We'll probably never know for sure, but I'm impressed by the theory
> that it's the world's oldest surviving photographic negative, a
> primitive photograph of a staged cadaver, made using a large camera
> obscura, and probably a simple lens. Apparently, photo-sensitive
> silver compounds were known during that period, and lenses
> certainly were.
Nah, too far fetched.
> It seems to me that what's really interesting about the Shroud of
> Turin is not the possibility that it's a miraculous image of you
> know who, but rather the question of how the 14-15th century
> forgers created the image.
>
> We'll probably never know for sure, but I'm impressed by the theory
> that it's the world's oldest surviving photographic negative, a
> primitive photograph of a staged cadaver, made using a large camera
> obscura, and probably a simple lens. Apparently, photo-sensitive
> silver compounds were known during that period, and lenses
> certainly were.
This book has an amusing theory:
<http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Second-Messiah-Templars-Freemasonry/dp/0099227320/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1339185533&sr=8-1>
They claim it's the sweat and blood stains of Jacques de Molay after his
torture by Philip the Fair...
--
Illegitimi non carborundum
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Jun 8, 2012, 12:26:35 PM6/8/12
to
>>If you believe you believe no proof necessary, but it can help 'prove'
>>it to others
>>that aren't believers.
>>Few believers even want to adress the problem of Jesuses hair eye and
>>skin colour.
>>From what I've heard of where he was born it wasn;t exactly common to
>>have blonde hair and blue eyes
>>but perhaps he did get them from his fathers side who was obviously
>>English :-D
> It's possible he was blonde. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blond
> "Blonds are also found in Turkey, especially in the northern
> (Caucasus) and western (European) parts of the country. Blonds are
> also found in parts of southwest and northern Iran, especially in
> the Caspian and Caucasus provinces. Blonds are also found in the
> Levant, Israel (especially among the Ashkenazi), in western Syria,
> in northern Iraq, and in the Palestinian territories. Jordan and
> Lebanon have a frequency of blonds as well. Blond hair is also a
> common sight among Berbers of North Africa, especially in the Rif
> and Kabyle region and also among Maghreb Arabs of Berber descent."
Now, do the same thing for blue eyes and light skin and soon
>>it to others
>>that aren't believers.
>>Few believers even want to adress the problem of Jesuses hair eye and
>>skin colour.
>>From what I've heard of where he was born it wasn;t exactly common to
>>have blonde hair and blue eyes
>>but perhaps he did get them from his fathers side who was obviously
>>English :-D
> It's possible he was blonde. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blond
> "Blonds are also found in Turkey, especially in the northern
> (Caucasus) and western (European) parts of the country. Blonds are
> also found in parts of southwest and northern Iran, especially in
> the Caspian and Caucasus provinces. Blonds are also found in the
> Levant, Israel (especially among the Ashkenazi), in western Syria,
> in northern Iraq, and in the Palestinian territories. Jordan and
> Lebanon have a frequency of blonds as well. Blond hair is also a
> common sight among Berbers of North Africa, especially in the Rif
> and Kabyle region and also among Maghreb Arabs of Berber descent."
you'll find he was an Aryan and therefore(sic) a real Nazi.
-Wolf'some people's minds are very twisted'gang
Grimly Curmudgeon
Jun 11, 2012, 6:24:52 PM6/11/12
to
On Thu, 31 May 2012 23:22:06 -0600, Wally <Wa...@luxx.com> wrote:
>It was God who created the Shroud of Turin.
>
>But which God?
>It was God who created the Shroud of Turin.
>
The Great Nikon, of course. Ably assisted by the Canon.
R. Kennedy McEwen
Jun 13, 2012, 9:01:33 PM6/13/12
to
In article <s0sct758apl57ooic...@4ax.com>, Grimly
Curmudgeon <gri...@gmail.com> writes
Not to mention Mr Eastman's ancestors. ;-)
--
Kennedy
Curmudgeon <gri...@gmail.com> writes
--
Kennedy
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Jun 14, 2012, 7:58:01 AM6/14/12
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kannon
, there is a godly link to Canon. (Wonder if there's any to
Nikon).
-Wolfgang
0 new messages