How it Works0 min ago
May we treat the Turin Shroud separately, please?
48 Answers
The main theme of naomi's post below was diluted by digressions into the the subject of the Turin Shroud. May we discuss that separately?
The interesting thing about this cloth is you can cast doubt on its alleged mediaeval origins without involving Jesus at all. After all, even if it is the shroud of a crucified man, the Romans crucified countless thousands of people so we could never know which one this belonged to anyway.
There is nothing that can persuade me that the anatomically correct image on the Shroud could have been produced IN NEGATIVE a thousand years ago when it was discovered to be a negative only after photography was invented. The task is simply impossible as modern painters and researchers have shown. To leave no trace of any pigment or dye is another incomprehesible achievement. Also, the image can be properly discerned only from about 15 feet away. Very long paint-brushes?
Finally the last tests done are totallly invalid because there was no 'chain of custody' of the samples. The researchers did not cut them off themsleves but relied on the word of the Vatican officials that there were samples from the Shroud. This made the whole exercise nonsensical from the start and I am puzzled as to why anyone ever agreed to take part in.
Anyway, that's a start...
The interesting thing about this cloth is you can cast doubt on its alleged mediaeval origins without involving Jesus at all. After all, even if it is the shroud of a crucified man, the Romans crucified countless thousands of people so we could never know which one this belonged to anyway.
There is nothing that can persuade me that the anatomically correct image on the Shroud could have been produced IN NEGATIVE a thousand years ago when it was discovered to be a negative only after photography was invented. The task is simply impossible as modern painters and researchers have shown. To leave no trace of any pigment or dye is another incomprehesible achievement. Also, the image can be properly discerned only from about 15 feet away. Very long paint-brushes?
Finally the last tests done are totallly invalid because there was no 'chain of custody' of the samples. The researchers did not cut them off themsleves but relied on the word of the Vatican officials that there were samples from the Shroud. This made the whole exercise nonsensical from the start and I am puzzled as to why anyone ever agreed to take part in.
Anyway, that's a start...
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Ratter, to cut a long story short, the documentary centred around Leonardo da Vinci's fascination with the construction of the human body, and with lenses and early experiments in basic photography. It was pretty convincing. I don't know if it's available to view on the internet, or if it will be repeated, but it's worth watching and certainly makes more sense than ‘magic’. Here’s a bit from the Telegraph about it.
http://www.telegraph....eonardo-da-Vinci.html
http://www.telegraph....eonardo-da-Vinci.html
Ha ha! Really? Well, if memory serves, the Koran has human sperm produced somewhere around the middle of the back, so both wrong. This programme didn’t really mention Leonardo’s interest in the workings of the human body, but rather his fascination with its construction. Apparently he liked dissecting dead bodies to study muscles, etc.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
naomi, I'm not quite sure which, or who, makes no sense regarding the negative aspect of the image. My point was that even if the idea of a negative were conceived in those days (with the 'artist' not caring that no-one would ever see his work as a positive image) it would be quite impossible to 'paint' such a negative image so as to produce such an anatomically perfect positive image centuries later when photography was invented.
That, together with the absence of pigments and dyes, is, to my mind, convincing evidence that the image as not an artefact.
Those who still quote the lab tests have ignored my point about there being no proper chain of custody of the samples. Without it the tests are invalid.
That, together with the absence of pigments and dyes, is, to my mind, convincing evidence that the image as not an artefact.
Those who still quote the lab tests have ignored my point about there being no proper chain of custody of the samples. Without it the tests are invalid.
Chakka, so when you say "the image is not an artefact', do you mean you think it was created relatively recently, after photography was invented?
Did you by any chance see last night's programme? I think it may have provided the nearest solution to the mystery yet.
(By the way, did you know the new quiz is now available?).
Did you by any chance see last night's programme? I think it may have provided the nearest solution to the mystery yet.
(By the way, did you know the new quiz is now available?).
Chakka, it would be quite easy for negative image to have been produced inadvertantly. If a positive image had been painted with a pigment or dye )which acted as a mask preventing the cloth from being yellowed by light) which was later removed by washing for example, a negative image would be left behind. It could persist for long time
While I don't consider the evidence conclusive enough to resurrect and hang the man for the deed, I find the case made in this series compelling and certainly wouldn't put it past the likes of Leonardo to seize such an opportunity to create yet another self-portrait, and perhaps in today's environment feel free to own up to it.
I would also be interested to hear Chakka's take on the 'Leonardo, creator of the shroud' hypothesis.
I would also be interested to hear Chakka's take on the 'Leonardo, creator of the shroud' hypothesis.
Then there's always this....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_Edessa
.....and this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_Veronica
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_Edessa
.....and this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_Veronica
Mibs, thanks for posting that. Have you watched it? I feel the people in that programme may have really hit on something. I was most impressed by the demonstration of the completely distorted image that would actually be left on a cloth that had been wrapped around a human body. I'm not sure about Leonardo da Vinci - his name seems to crop up everywhere - although he was certainly clever enough and he was in precisely the right place at the right time - but I thought the whole thing quite fascinating.
Jack, I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again. They all want a bit of him. Poor chap.
Jack, I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again. They all want a bit of him. Poor chap.
Yes, Naomi. I found the programme presented a compelling and persuasive case for the shroud being another amongst Leonardo's many magnificent masterpieces, probably executed with full knowledge that his prank would eventually be exposed and his genius reaffirmed some centuries following his physical demise. What ever the case may be regarding the origin of the shroud, I must credit Leonardo De Vinci for being one of the most positive influences for me and I suspect in the life of many others as well . . . but I digress.
Thank you, Naomi, for bringing this highly recommended presentation to my attention.
Thank you, Naomi, for bringing this highly recommended presentation to my attention.
Ahh, I see. My pleasure. Superb isn't it. If anyone wants to see more pictures look here.
http://www.theanswerb.../Question1106589.html
Sorry Chakka.
http://www.theanswerb.../Question1106589.html
Sorry Chakka.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.