The mystery of the Holy Shroud

On Jan 10, 6:53 pm, " wrote:
On Jan 10, 5:40 pm, tadchem wrote:



On Jan 10, 2:51 pm, (Anonymous) wrote:

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, wrote:
The Holy Shroud in Turin is and remains a riddle

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

I think that the only mystery remaining about the Shroud of Turin
is *Why* do antichrists (Atheists, CHRINOs, ad nauseam) refuse to
accept the incontrovertible evidence that this particular artifact
is the _actual_ shroud that the horribly beaten and crucified dead
physical body of Jesus Christ was wrapped in for more than seventy-
two contiguous hours before He physically resurrected, and neatly
folded up the cloth, and left it in the tomb for mortals to find?

The other side of the question is "why do the True Believers insist on
accepting
a medieval piece of religious art as some magically produced artifact
with its
own miraculous powers that for some inscrutable reason came into
existence
and continues to exist outside of the 'Divine Order' of the 'perfect
creation'
completed on the 6th Day by the Creators work?"

In other words, why are there miracles in a perfect world? Either the
world is
not perfect, or there are no miracles. You cannot eat your cake and
still have it.

Armageddon Cometh,

Armageddon came and went.

It ended with the siege of Masada.

Your Saviour's body was dismembered in a cave on the south side of the
citadel
and parts were cast to the rocks below, insuring that He will never
again be
resurrected.

Evil won. Deal with it.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

Tom, I don't know about the dismemberment of the body, but what I do
know is that the Shroud of Turin was once made available for
scientific analysis, and that the stains on it were positively
identified as artist's pigments. Not that I believe what I see on TV,
but there was a television program on the subject.

A strong faith helps some people through difficult times, and often
tends to persuade others from destructive, animal like, impulsive
behavior, but if their faith hinges on a artist pigment stained rag,
then their faith seems to me to be rather superficial.

Harry C.

i think you must be confused as to what the results of the scientific
analysis were... There were pigments on the shroud, but not to form
the image of the body, who was obviously genuinely crucified, whipped
and so on, to produce 'the effect'...
And then it was photographed.
The Shroud of Turin is the oldest existing photograph.
The clincher for this argument is the foreshortened legs, suggesting
that the pinhole lens was about level with the bodies chest.
Also: The gap at the top of the head, which should have been
continuous if it had been laid around/over the body, means that the
body was simply flipped over, and another exposure was taken.

Just another case of where some unknown ( Certainly NOT Leonardo )
genius, developed a remarkable technology, and took it to the grave
with him.

On Jan 12, 5:13*am, Benj wrote:
On Jan 11, 4:48 pm, " wrote:

On Jan 11, 7:49 am, eddie wrote:
I've read a little on the subject from one scientist who has done some
research on it....bacteria do produce a plastic substance which has
been found to mess up the carbon dating.

I didn't post about carbon dating, but IIRC the Shroud was carbon
dated to a period well beyond the lifetime of Christ.
My point was simply that the stains on the Shroud analyzed as artists'
pigments, not organic residue.

I don't know where you got this information. IIRC there were no
artist's pigments found either as the "blood" or the image itself. *Or
are you referring to some other stains? *The "image" which was long
regarded as a painted fake, was clearly found to be created by a
yellowing of the cloth fibers. *No pigment of any kind was found. *The
"blood" stains were also found to be in such forensic detail that no
artist of the period could have ever had the knowledge to "paint"
them. *The carbon dating was found not be to the period of the death
of Yeshua (Jesus) but others have argued that bacteria over time
create contamination that invalidates the process.

All of this leads to a conclusion that there can't be a quick
dismissal of this shroud as an "artistic" creation. There seem to be
two leading theories that could make some sense. One is that the
shroud is what it purports to be and the image is the result of
radiation at the time of the "resurection" be it re-animation energies
or a UFO tractor beam or whatever your favorite idea is. The other
competing theory is the idea that Leonardo DaVinci faked the shroud
for the Church using a dead body, sunlight and the world's first
photographic setup. Someone (British) wrote a book proposing that
theory and it was quite detailed.

Benj

Benj, no need for a UFO beam was required, since the lab reuslts have
been identified as simply artist's pigments.

All you have to do to find an explanation for the stains on the Shroud
of Truing is to Google "shroud artist pigments" and look for the name
McCrone.

I believe that the Vatican agrees with these findings.

Harry C.

On Jan 12, 6:26 pm, The Translucent Amoebae
wrote:
On Jan 10, 6:53 pm, " wrote:



On Jan 10, 5:40 pm, tadchem wrote:

On Jan 10, 2:51 pm, (Anonymous) wrote:

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, wrote:
The Holy Shroud in Turin is and remains a riddle

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

I think that the only mystery remaining about the Shroud of Turin
is *Why* do antichrists (Atheists, CHRINOs, ad nauseam) refuse to
accept the incontrovertible evidence that this particular artifact
is the _actual_ shroud that the horribly beaten and crucified dead
physical body of Jesus Christ was wrapped in for more than seventy-
two contiguous hours before He physically resurrected, and neatly
folded up the cloth, and left it in the tomb for mortals to find?

The other side of the question is "why do the True Believers insist on
accepting
a medieval piece of religious art as some magically produced artifact
with its
own miraculous powers that for some inscrutable reason came into
existence
and continues to exist outside of the 'Divine Order' of the 'perfect
creation'
completed on the 6th Day by the Creators work?"

In other words, why are there miracles in a perfect world? Either the
world is
not perfect, or there are no miracles. You cannot eat your cake and
still have it.

Armageddon Cometh,

Armageddon came and went.

It ended with the siege of Masada.

Your Saviour's body was dismembered in a cave on the south side of the
citadel
and parts were cast to the rocks below, insuring that He will never
again be
resurrected.

Evil won. Deal with it.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

Tom, I don't know about the dismemberment of the body, but what I do
know is that the Shroud of Turin was once made available for
scientific analysis, and that the stains on it were positively
identified as artist's pigments. Not that I believe what I see on TV,
but there was a television program on the subject.

A strong faith helps some people through difficult times, and often
tends to persuade others from destructive, animal like, impulsive
behavior, but if their faith hinges on a artist pigment stained rag,
then their faith seems to me to be rather superficial.

Harry C.

i think you must be confused as to what the results of the scientific
analysis were... There were pigments on the shroud, but not to form
the image of the body, who was obviously genuinely crucified, whipped
and so on, to produce 'the effect'...
And then it was photographed.
The Shroud of Turin is the oldest existing photograph.

The chemistry of hematite, vermilion, and collagen does not permit the
production of photosensitive materials.

The clincher for this argument is the foreshortened legs, suggesting
that the pinhole lens was about level with the bodies chest.

That does not wash with the fact that one leg was significantly
shorter than the other. If you are right, Jesus was a cripple. If
science is right, the shroud was painted by an artist who was not well-
schooled in anatomy. In the mid-14th century (before the Rennaisance)
there were no Western artists well-schooled in anatomy.

Here is an fun little game to play. Measure the distance from the
outside corner of one eye, across that eye and the bridge of the nose
and then the other eye to the far corner. The distance between the
outer corners of my eyes is about 4.5 inches (11 cm). The distance
between my pupils is 3.5 inches. The distance from my right pupil to
the center of my ear hole is about 5 inches. If I were to cover my
face with ink and plant it into a white towel, the distance from the
center of the impression of my left eye to the center of the
impression of my left ear would be about 5 inches, much larger than
the distance between my pupils.

Try the same with the Shroud's image, and you will see that the shroud
was off the head well past the hair covering the ears, long before it
should have been:
http://www.shroudforum.com/exhibit/images/face.jpg

Either (1) the Shroud image was NOT made by wrapping the shroud around
a real human head (totally invalidating the very concept of a burial
shroud), or (2) Jesus' head has the proportions of a cardboard cutout
with much breadth and very little depth.

Also: The gap at the top of the head, which should have been
continuous if it had been laid around/over the body, means that the
body was simply flipped over, and another exposure was taken.

Or it means that the artist worked on one side at a time.

Just another case of where some unknown ( Certainly NOT Leonardo )
genius, developed a remarkable technology, and took it to the grave
with him.

That would be an impossible technology, but then you haven't examined
the photomicrographs, have you.

To produce a photograph, the photosensitive chemicals must first be
coated *uniformly* over the plate. No lumps. This is not true of the
Shroud.

You are postulating something equivalent to "I don't know how it could
be done, therefore it must have been a miracle. Once I believe it is
a miracle, it must be physically impossible. Since I want to believe
in miracles, whenever anybody tries to give me a non-miraculous
explanation, I must believe they are wrong."

You seem to fail to recognize that your "photography" rationalization
also amounts to claim that the Shroud is not an actual burial shroud
in the sense of having been used to wrap a body, but merely a
primitive imaging system which had no physical contact with the
sunject.

The spirit of Erich von Däniken lives in you.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

On Jan 12, 6:11 pm, tadchem wrote:
On Jan 12, 6:26 pm, The Translucent Amoebae
wrote:



On Jan 10, 6:53 pm, " wrote:

On Jan 10, 5:40 pm, tadche...ich von Däniken lives in you.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

i suspect that most people have a problem with the photographic
postulate because they think, without knowing anything about
photography, that it's a very complicated technology that was only
made available by means of highly advanced chemical processes in the
20th Century.

You could take an apple, very thoroughly grind it up, soak a finely
woven cloth in this soup, and you have a perfectly viable photographic
film.

Fixing it; Or changing the chemistry of it, after the exposure is a
slightly more tricky trick, and i'm not sure how you'd do with an
apple based emulsion...???

But we're talking here about a genius with some alchemical background,
and 'The Trick' that he either stumbled across by carefully observing
something completely unrelated, or by means of a discovery long sought
after...???

The Camera on the other hand, had already been around for a few
hundred years... WITHOUT FILM...!!! Why would anyone make and
popularize a camera without film...???
Because back then, ( 15th Cen ) it was known as a Camera Obscura, or
Camera Lucida, which was basically a dark room or box with a dark
cloth draped over on side; with a pinhole lens, or an actual primative
lens on the other end.
It was used by people that simply found the effect of a very dimly
projected image fascinating, or by artists that wanted to make better
pictures.

So there you have it; Easily obtainable film, a camera that's been
around for years & years, and the only missing two bits are a through
knowledge of how a crucified body should look, and the emulsion
fixative.

Not extremely impossible mysteries.

On Jan 12, 4:27 pm, " wrote:
On Jan 12, 5:13 am, Benj wrote:



On Jan 11, 4:48 pm, " wrote:

On Jan 11, 7:49 am, eddie wrote:
I've read a little on the subject from one scientist who has done some
research on it....bacteria do produce a plastic substance which has
been found to mess up the carbon dating.

I didn't post about carbon dating, but IIRC the Shroud was carbon
dated to a period well beyond the lifetime of Christ.
My point was simply that the stains on the Shroud analyzed as artists'
pigments, not organic residue.

I don't know where you got this information. IIRC there were no
artist's pigments found either as the "blood" or the image itself. Or
are you referring to some other stains? The "image" which was long
regarded as a painted fake, was clearly found to be created by a
yellowing of the cloth fibers. No pigment of any kind was found. The
"blood" stains were also found to be in such forensic detail that no
artist of the period could have ever had the knowledge to "paint"
them. The carbon dating was found not be to the period of the death
of Yeshua (Jesus) but others have argued that bacteria over time
create contamination that invalidates the process.

All of this leads to a conclusion that there can't be a quick
dismissal of this shroud as an "artistic" creation. There seem to be
two leading theories that could make some sense. One is that the
shroud is what it purports to be and the image is the result of
radiation at the time of the "resurection" be it re-animation energies
or a UFO tractor beam or whatever your favorite idea is. The other
competing theory is the idea that Leonardo DaVinci faked the shroud
for the Church using a dead body, sunlight and the world's first
photographic setup. Someone (British) wrote a book proposing that
theory and it was quite detailed.

Benj

Benj, no need for a UFO beam was required, since the lab reuslts have
been identified as simply artist's pigments.

All you have to do to find an explanation for the stains on the Shroud
of Truing is to Google "shroud artist pigments" and look for the name
McCrone.

I believe that the Vatican agrees with these findings.

Harry C.

This evidence, by your own source, is refuted in the next paragraph.

On Jan 12, 12:32 am, Benj wrote:
On Jan 11, 8:21 pm, Uncle Al wrote:

" wrote:
On Jan 11, 7:49 am, eddie wrote:
Harry C,
I've read a little on the subject from one scientist who has done some
research on it....bacteria do produce a plastic substance which has
been found to mess up the carbon dating.

[snip crap]

And "uncle Al" begins his expounding that has NOTHING to do with
Carbon Dating. Of course most of his rants have nothing to do with the
subject at hand.

1) A sheet is a zero-curvature Euclidean plane.

Wrong. It falls and curves over the face.

2) A caucasoid face is a positve curvature elliptic surface

Jargon-filled wordyness, but true.

3) An elliptic surface (e.g., the Earth or Jesus H. ****ing
Christ's face) cannot be projected upon a Euclidean plane (e.g., a
paper map or a linen sheet) without distortion. Cartography, asshole.

The image projected on the shroud DOES have distortion. It differs
significantly from a photograph. The general theory is that the
intensity of the image is related to the distance of the cloth to the
body (more image than just face).
Punctuated by gratuitous ad hominem.

4) The Shroud of Turin is a crappy fraud.

Ah here we go: "Proof by assertion!" Works for me every time!

Make your own Shroud of Uncle AL:

1) Flat plaster bas relief sculpture of a face. If you are a
keener, deeply sculpt a pizza stone.
2) Get yourself a flat cotton sheet or, better, a thicker flat
cotton cloth. Wool will stink; polymer will melt.
3) Heat the bas relief sculpture not above 233 C.
4) Lay down the flat cotton cloth ad sung until it chars a bit.
5) There ya go, asshole - the Shroud of Uncle Al, complete with
photographic reversal.

Except that there will be a different temperature (and burn rate)
between the part of the relief TOUCHING the cloth and the part just
radiating to it. I guess you never tried your own experiment, right?

Moron.

Uncle Al says, "Never underestimate assholiness of large numbers of
stupid people."

Say, wait a minute. You are one of those Joos, right? Don't you guys
have a vested interest in discrediting any and all stories about this
particular Messiah?

Why? He was just another Joo.

Stuart

On Jan 10, 9:53*pm, " wrote:

Tom, I don't know about the dismemberment of the body, but what I do
know is that the Shroud of Turin was once made available for
scientific analysis, and that the stains on it were positively
identified as artist's pigments. Not that I believe what I see on TV,
but there was a television program on the subject.



Yeah; either the "blood" was painted on with iron oxide pigment, or
else Jesus had one serious case of hemochomatosis. Of course, perhaps
that's the key to divinity; kind of like midichlorians; you need to
move a lot of oxygen to your physical manifestation, if you're going
to do miracles.

On Jan 11, 7:49*am, eddie wrote:
Harry C,

I've read a little on the subject from one scientist who has done some
research on it....bacteria do produce a plastic substance which has
been found to mess up the carbon dating.

say what?

On Jan 11, 4:48*pm, " wrote:
On Jan 11, 7:49*am, eddie wrote:

Harry C,

I've read a little on the subject from one scientist who has done some
research on it....bacteria do produce a plastic substance which has
been found to mess up the carbon dating.

I didn't post about carbon dating, but IIRC the Shroud was carbon
dated to a period well beyond the lifetime of Christ.
My point was simply that the stains on the Shroud analyzed as artists'
pigments, not organic residue.

I really don't care either way, and tend to regard the legend of
Christ equal in credibility of the Morman tale related to Joseph Smith
and Hill Cumorah.
Both tales are beautiful and inspirational legends, but legends that
have historically brought out both the best and the worst in men.

I personally tend to govern my life based on the Old Testament's 10
Commandments, and my charities based on the New Testament. Both appeal
to my sense of logic.

You could do worse.

Harry C.

well, that brings up the interesting question: "Hypothetically, if it
did turn out that the Shroud were in fact a medieval painting, would
that then destroy your faith in Jesus?" I expect almost nobody would
say yes. So, why the huge debate as though it were some sort of
fundamental requirement of the entire Christian religion that it be in
fact the actual Shroud, despite a lot of evidence to the contrary?

Stuart wrote:

On Jan 12, 12:32 am, Benj wrote:
On Jan 11, 8:21 pm, Uncle Al wrote:

" wrote:
On Jan 11, 7:49 am, eddie wrote:
Harry C,
I've read a little on the subject from one scientist who has done some
research on it....bacteria do produce a plastic substance which has
been found to mess up the carbon dating.

[snip crap]

And "uncle Al" begins his expounding that has NOTHING to do with
Carbon Dating. Of course most of his rants have nothing to do with the
subject at hand.

1) A sheet is a zero-curvature Euclidean plane.

Wrong. It falls and curves over the face.

Tell it to a cartographer, you uneducated lout.

Euclidean plane:
1) Sum of interior angles of a triangle = 180 degrees exactly.
2) One line can be drawn through a point not on a reference line
parallel to that reference line.
3) Ratio of circle circumference to diameter = pi exactly.

Elliptic plane:
1) Sum of interior angles of a triangle is *always greater* than 180
degrees. Largst sum possible is 540 degrees.
2) *No* line can be drawn through a point not on a reference line
parallel to that reference line.
3) Ratio of circle circumference to diameter is always *less* than
pi.

NO FIGURE ON AN ELLIPTIC PLANE (a curved face) CAN BE PROJECTED ONTO A
EUCLIDEAN PLANE (a flat linen sheet) WITHOUT DISTORTION. The
undistorted image on the Shroud of Turin is a geometric impossibility
- it is a cheap fake. That it can be trivially, exactly reproduced
with a sculpted flat plaster slab, a cotton sheet, and an oven
confirms its fraud.

[snip rest of irrational crap]


--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2