THE TURIN SHROUD

[Maat]

I am having a hard time seeing the image in the shroud as "well proportioned", Maat. The head is ridiculously small and the neck too short, compared to the rest of the limbs that are quite long. The pieces do not belong together. Without even going into the fact the the original was very likely flat, as we have seen, so even if the proportions were correct, we are still in presence of an "impossible" image to be produced by a real body

Dear Nonho, when I said the shroud image is 'well proportioned' I of course meant that it was consistent with that of a well proportioned man who had been savagely beaten, crucified and in rigor mortis!
i.e. In this position:

@ http://www.shroud.com/piczek2.htm

All the effects have been dissected and examined for over 30 years, the 'neck' is not visible because of the chin position (inclined downward) and from an original binding strip that would have been around the neck per Judaic burial customs.

I'm not sure how it can help this discussion to take an adamant stand without explaining and showing how and why. Especially if not 'on the same page' of familiarity with already known, proven data on the subject, (ref links provided). I'm certainly not trying to make it more complicated at all, it is complex and difficult enough trying to tip-toe around entrenched beliefs or prejudices.

As one would expect from over a hundred years of fascination with what caused the shroud image, hundreds of researchers — amateur and professional; atheist, agnostic and religious (of various faiths) — have tried to solve it.
The list includes every specialty from scientists, archeologists, pathologists, chemists, biologists, theologians, photographers, historians and artists of all kinds. So you see it is not just "troll-professors" saying it must be real

If it were a man-made forgery by any Medieval artist or 'alchemist', surely someone would have been able to exactly duplicate its unique elements. So why can't it be reproduced with all the latest knowledge in science and technology? If it could be done, wouldn't that be the ultimate prize for any "reputation" or career motives?

Most conclude that the only thing that could have manifested what is actually on the shroud would be "a very short burst of high energy radiation."

This article has a good collection of referenced quotes, I've posted a few below:

Re: "Was ... the image burnt on by pressing the cloth against a heated sculpture?"

"Another popular concept has been that, instead of a body, a lifesize statue or relief was employed. ... But can it be sustained? It is, for instance, very surprising that some unknown artist, in addition to all his other cleverness, should have displayed the subtlety and depth of anatomical knowledge displayed on the Shroud. No amount of poring through the art of the Middle Ages reveals anyone who worked even remotely in this way." (Wilson, 1986, pp.66,68).

"An artist who was good enough to create an image as impressive as the Shroud's would surely have made many copies of it. Shroud copies of this level of artistry would have demanded a king's ransom. Where is the statue or the bas-relief that the artist used? It would have graced the finest cathedral and become a famous image in its own right. And, to repeat a point made before, this artist would have had to have forged an image that, would not have been appreciated for hundreds of years after his death, until the invention of photography and other modern analytical techniques." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, 1981, p.109).

"Another popular concept has been that, instead of a body, a lifesize statue or relief was employed. Prior to 1978 there was considerable interest in the Shroud body image's similarity to the scorches from the 1532 fire. It was theorized that someone in the Middle Ages had produced the Shroud's delicate gradations by wrapping the cloth around a heated metal statue, the linen receiving scorches proportionately more intense according to the cloth's distance from any one part of the hot statue. Cogent as this idea might seem, in the light of the 1978 testing it has attracted enthusiasm from neither the STURP team nor Dr. McCrone. According to STURP members, scorches fluoresce under ultraviolet light, and while the Shroud's scorches from the 1532 fire indeed do so, the body image does not." (Wilson, 1986, pp.66,68).

"As Dr Adler continues to argue, [Adler, A.D., "The Shroud Fabric and the Body Image: Chemical and Physical Characteristics', International Scientific Symposium, "The Turin Shroud, past, present and future," Villa Gualino, Turin, 2-5 March 2000] in the wake of Heller's death and having been granted a relatively recent direct viewing of the cloth to facilitate conservation recommendations, `the body' image areas are superficial in the extreme, lying only on the very top of the Shroud threads. They do not penetrate the cloth, nor do they exhibit any capillarity or absorptive properties. They are more brittle than their non-image counterparts, as if whatever formed them corroded them. They are uniform in coloration, they are not cemented together, neither are they `diffused' as they would be if they derived from some dye or stain. They do not `fluoresce' or reflect back any light. Most emphatically, they are not made by pigment contact." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara: London, 2000, p.74)

"Another objection to the hot statue method lies in the inevitable creation of `hot spots' or well-defined regions of enhanced image density at points where the statue touched the cloth. Such spots would necessarily result from thermal conduction, [Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin," Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, 1982, pp.3-49, p.28] yet no such regions are present on the Shroud body image. ... the entire image contains the same density of coloration." (Antonacci, M., "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, p.79)

"The basic fact remains: neither Joe Nickell nor any other artist or forger has ever created an image showing all the characteristics of the image of the man of the Shroud. For example, none of them are three-dimensional, superficial, or non-directional. Photographers claim that it is impossible to fake such a delicate image photographically. One cited by Wilcox wrote, `I've been involved in the invention of many complicated processes, and I can tell you that no one could have faked that image. No one could do it today with all the technology we have. It's a perfect negative. It has a photographic quality that is extremely precise.' [Leo Vala in Wilcox, R.K., "Shroud," 1977, pp.130-131]

In recent years a skeptical artist and photographer from Great Britain set out to deliberately duplicate the Shroud image using modern photographic techniques. He was convinced at the outset that the Turin cloth was a hoax. In the end, although his results were good enough to be used in the movie, `The Silent Witness,' his image is vastly inferior to the original. He concluded that it was virtually impossible for a human to have forged the Shroud image. In fact, the Shroud has never been successfully duplicated even with the aid of modern technology, despite some valiant attempts. In summary, it is virtually impossible that the Shroud image can be a forgery. ... The scientific testing of the Shroud uncovered no evidence for forgery. The technical demands of such a forgery appear far beyond the capabilities of a medieval artist, and modern-day attempts to duplicate the Shroud image have all failed." (Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.109-110).

For perspective, the phenomenon of a physical body absorbed into light after death is not unknown in Asia (although very rare)i.e. spiritual adepts like Lamas (albeit taking 6 days, not 3 or instantly, but they weren't Y'eshua or Melkizadek)
See Born In Tibet by Chögyam Trungpa

why would Christ manifest his own image in the man-made convention and technique of the flat 2-dimensional photographic negative ?

What if that was simply the inevitable result of the event itself, no more 'intentional' than a fingerprint left on a glass? And since nothing happens without a reason (on many levels), I see it as a mnemonic device, a 'paradigm shift key' for those who still believe Science can explain everything and a reminder that the Churches (Catholic-Protestant=Pharisee-Sadducee) enslave and possess; neither knowing, practicing nor teaching truth — if they really did, they would lose their power to control.

[nonhocapito]

Forgive me Maat if I sound hurried in my responses. It doesn't mean they are completely ignorant of all the issues raised. I still don't feel the need to turn around and follow the scientists of Hamlin all the way to ancient Palestine.

We are discussing a Veronica (as in Vera Icona, true icon): a "veil carrying the true image of christ that was in possession of Saint veronica". In other words one of the many old legends of Christianity. It caused a countless number of fake relics to be created over the centuries, and it is probable that the Turin Shroud was one of them. Well executed, sure. But probably its most important feature is that it was in the possession of the future ruling italian family who cared a great deal to appear as the most important and oldest noble family of the italian peninsula (which it wasn't), and that nowadays "science" declares to be "puzzled" by it.

You talk about jewish burial customs, but, without knowing anything of said customs, I ask you: was a shroud barely laid on top of these bodies? Or were they wrapped carefully in it?

It is funny how certain scientific truths are OK ("it doesn't fluoresce") but others are considered irrelevant: If the shroud was carbon-dated around the 13th century, we simply should start by imagining the shroud to have been created around that time. If so, the lack of proportions of the body is extremely relevant because it is very consistent with the abilities, artistic vision and taste of the artists of that time: without the need to disturb jewish burial customs.


The crucifixion by Masaccio, 1426. What's up with the neck? Is the head well proportioned?

As to the original double bas-relief that was used to create the shroud: it is unnecessary in my opinion to imagine a good, perfect statue, beautiful enough to be exposed in a church. It was probably a not too thick piece of material, created for just this purpose, and subsequently fused again to make something else out of it. Metals were rare, so much that old roman buildings were constantly savaged off the bronze and iron they carried. No reason to imagine that the bas relief used for such a blasphemous purpose underwent a different destiny.

As to the multiple copies, this is total speculation, because we don't know who created it, in what conditions, and under whose orders. Maybe to make a single copy was a requirement. Maybe more copies were made and they got lost.

As to bodies being absorbed into light, I don't want to sound too heinously materialistic, but I'll believe it when I see it.

[reel.deal]

This is great guys ! (& gurl !) i love this stuff !

bottom line is... the shroud bears all the hallmarks of 2D photography. a negative, silver-nitate light-sensitivity process; also, its dimensions are
of the authentic C.1 bc Judaen measurements, 1 x 4 cubits, lending yet more credence to its '2011 year old actual authentic age'.

I say its a Da vinci. In Vasari's 'lives of the artists', he describes how Leonardo would turn up to the studio, only to sit down and stare at the stains on the wall - all day. Those 'natural' textures and patterns Leonardo is said to have described seeing the most fantastical landscapes contained within; perhaps even using some of these 'natural' inspirations to inform and create such phantasmagorical background landscapes in works such as The Mona Lisa. Dali did the same thing with clouds and other phenomena, and called these hallucinatory forms of inspiration his 'paranoia/critical technique. Max Ernst did the same thing with his floorboards-rubbing drawings, and his many forests created from the fractal-patterns made when pulling apart 2 sheets of paper containing wet paint. I've made pictures using similar 'phenomena'.

I think nonho may be onto something with the brass-rubbing cloths. But i think this more likely for the pre-Leonardo era 'restoration work'. The image could have been made originally with ash lightly rubbed on. We 're looking for a substance that bears no trace today, ash would easily fit the bill, so easily simply just washed or bleached away.

I dont think the technique 'we see' would become ubiquitous at all. If you watch the Hockney 'Secret Knowledge' film you will appreciate that camera-obscura techniques were kept closely guarded, which artist would want to admit they 'cheated' by tracing the image, and that they're not really a 'genius' at all ? Why are all Jan Vermeers so small ? because that is the optimum scale for best overall focal range. How did Frans Hals manage to capture The Laughing Cavaliers' ruff with such 'effortless' brevity and bravura ? Because he was tracing employing an optical glass lens. Why is the dark Caravaggio still life with melon and lute so 'otherwordly' and hyperreal; yet strangely differing 'vanishing points ? Because its 3 seperate 'still lives' in 1. 1 canvas, 3 seperately painted elements, using 3 seperate optically refocussed elements. Of course, the 'genius', is in the way the paint is applied. But even a Genius like Caravaggio still betrays his total reliance on optics, evidenced by foreshortening issues and disparities of scale.

The trade off is simple; the Vatican/Machiavelli/Whoever - commission Da Vinci to 'restore' the image of Christ on The Shroud;
on condition that he keeps the technique exclusive, and to the grave. Whats in it for Leo ? He gets to have his own face
representing the image of 'The Son of God', & create the ultimate 'riddle', to boot.

No, Leonardo was no Warhol, experimental to the last, quality not quantity his thing.
No mass produced conveyor-belt proto 'Daguerro-types' for him...

Lastly, evryone is in agreement that The Shroud cannot be a proto-'photo'; because the artist/photographer
would not be able to check his handiwork until the 1st negative of The Shroud was seen, in 1898, as it was.
The First Shroud Photo - http://www.shroud.com/vanhels4.htm

Well, you all know this image, right ? ...and appreciate the optical phenomenon it employs...


http://dappledthings.wordpress.com/2009 ... -his-face/
http://www.frenblog.com/illusion/jesus-illusion/


but hey, i can be swayed ! ...but for now, i still say Shroud is real, image man-made... a 'Da Vinci'.

[Maat]

Forgive me Maat if I sound hurried in my responses. It doesn't mean they are completely ignorant of all the issues raised. I still don't feel the need to turn around and follow the scientists of Hamlin all the way to ancient Palestine.

We are discussing a Veronica (as in Vera Icona, true icon): a "veil carrying the true image of christ that was in possession of Saint veronica". In other words one of the many old legends of Christianity. It caused a countless number of fake relics to be created over the centuries, and it is probable that the Turin Shroud was one of them. Well executed, sure. But probably its most important feature is that it was in the possession of the future ruling italian family who cared a great deal to appear as the most important and oldest noble family of the italian peninsula (which it wasn't), and that nowadays "science" declares to be "puzzled" by it.

Ah yes, the Veronica Veil (the legend of the woman who wiped Jesus' face on the way to Golgotha before his death, alleged to have an image). It is often confused with the Sudarium of Oviedo face cloth wrapped around his head from his death on the cross to his entombment where it was presumably folded and put to one side.
The Sudarium does not have an image - only bloodstains and serum as well as pollen.

Of course anything considered important or sacred (real or fake) would have ended up in the possession of some powerful family or the Church.

You talk about jewish burial customs, but, without knowing anything of said customs, I ask you: was a shroud barely laid on top of these bodies? Or were they wrapped carefully in it?

Laid lengthways, top and bottom then linen strips wrapped it at the neck, waist and ankles (normally), but this was unfinished because of the sabbath, the women were returning with the ointments etc. when they found the burial cloths empty.

It is funny how certain scientific truths are OK ("it doesn't fluoresce") but others are considered irrelevant: If the shroud was carbon-dated around the 13th century, we simply should start by imagining the shroud to have been created around that time. If so, the lack of proportions of the body is extremely relevant because it is very consistent with the abilities, artistic vision and taste of the artists of that time: without the need to disturb jewish burial customs.

As I said before, the carbon dating screw up was already exposed in 2005: 'Apart from its known problems, the first radiocarbon tests permitted on the shroud in 1988 were not only contrary to proper protocol but taken from a repaired/rewoven area of the cloth! However, later tests on the appropriate samples in 2005 by a peer-reviewed chemist did indicate an age closer to c 2000 years*. The forensic and biological evidence of plant pollens in the cloth from the relevant place & time in Palestine (as well as its historical travels) had already indicated its age and origins.'

However, even supposing an artist of the 12th or 13th century had some secret technique (still unknown to modern science) to produce such a delicately faint, superficial negative image on the surface fibers of a linen cloth (only visible from 6' away), how could they know every forensic detail of a Roman crucifixion: the shape of the metal ends of the flagellum; that the nails did not go through the palms, but the wrists; nor the front of the feet but the heels; that the crown of thorns was not just a 'garland' ring around the head, but a clump jammed on the top? Not forgetting how they'd get the blood and serum stains on the cloth first.

Doesn't look very "consistent with the abilities, artistic vision and taste of the artists" of that time to me at all, certainly not that kind of obscure subtlety. Many were influenced by the shroud image after seeing it, of course, rendering their own impressions which bore some similarities to the face (as it was mostly shown at one time with only the upper torso or face showing). 'Chicken and egg' dilemma there, eh?

As to bodies being absorbed into light, I don't want to sound too heinously materialistic, but I'll believe it when I see it.

That's perfectly ok, the disciples didn't either — Thomas said that too!

[reel.deal]

[reel.deal]

Shroud ISNT a 'negative'; Its POSITIVE.

The hair, eyebrows, eyes/eyelids/coins,
cheeks, swollen wound on left cheek,
nostrils, moustache, top lip,
shadow under lower lip,
skin patches beneath mouth corners,
beard...


well, its kinda a mixture of both...

[reel.deal]

[Maat]

Positive__________________________________________________Negative

The further away it's viewed the clearer it is. @ http://www.shroud.com/shrdface.htm

My negative from the original positive at http://www.shroud.com/examine.htm :


Details of how the cloth itself was made:
Understanding the nature of the Shroud of Turin's images

[reel.deal]

Equalizing & some levels on the Shroud, just to see the positive/negative depiction in isolation.
The apparition is supposedly 100% negative, the Shrouds photo negative is supposedly 100% positive.
I'm just trying to replicate a bit of 'burnishing & dodging', as i have done in the past in the
darkroom when developing an A2 b&w print. I'm basically just exploring whether the image on the
Shroud could be made with a camera-obscura, or 'pinhole-camera', with some kind of cut-out masking
of the pale areas. I'm wondering if the Shroud has some positive qualities to it, and whether some of
the corresponding 'negative' areas remain negative', in the positive 'negative'...
if you see what i mean ?

If a template-mask was made to the scale of the the optical lens, say similar to a 4" lens used in
a basic darkroom developer, then its possible the image projected onto the light-sensitive coated
cloth could be positive, yet manipulated through masking to 'appear' negative...
I know i'm losing you already just suggesting the Shroud is 'positive', not 'negative',
maybe this is a bit of a stretch, putting the 'mental' into 'experimental' maybe, but i'm just
trying to conceive of how the 'negative' Shroud we see could have been produced photographically,
i.e. 'positively'...

I think we each have a valid take, good counter-measures to each others' propositions. I think
nonho has some good points with lost art techniques. French ultramarine originated from cow
urine. Who'd have thunk it ? Thats some pretty stinky alchemy goin' on, right there !

When ' http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/science.htm ' state -

Sugar Coated Shroud of Turin -
"Of this we can be certain:
the image is not paint and the polysaccharide residue is not is not a photo-sensitive emulsion";

how can they be so sure, what do they have to compare with, but todays photo-emulsions ?
the silver-nitrate light-sensitivity was discovered and recorded in Arabia in the 9th century,
how can todays science know the sugary residue isnt a byproduct of a 16thcentury lost process ?
i dunno, some starchy egg-tempera mixed up meringue thing gone wrong ?!?

The Da Vinci drawings above show blueprints for 'machines' to grind large concave glass lenses,
the final polishing still needing to be done by skilled craftsmens' hands. Reckon NASA wishes
they had those guys manufacture the Hubble. mark.1... would have got better than the 12x12
pixels resolution 'Eye of God' universe images that Hubble first produced. Its aso inconceivable
that Da Vinci didnt experiment with the optical potential & properties offered by the simple
glass lens. Is there a way, maybe, that a half positive/negative 'solarisation' filter effect was
arrived at, perhaps by doubling up 2 'opposing' lenses ? ...sort of like the different sound
effect & quality you get by stacking up the pickups on a guitar, to use a bad analogy.

The aspect that the image only 'emerges' from 6 feet back & more also reinforces the
life-size photographic 'print' quality of the Shroud, to me.
The feintness of the image, the extreme shallow depth of the 'burn'; all point towards
the image having been created with light, & more specifically, directly by the SUN...
perhaps a diminished & dim super-controlled slowburn over some time to get it just right ?

if the pieces wont or dont fit, i'll be first to admit it. If you can convince me
with conclusive proof that the Shroud is not made 'photographically' in any sense,
then i'll gladly concede, til then; i'm gonna keep thinking on that tract...
whether right or wrong. who knows ? not me !

[nonhocapito]

[Note: I know I had posted this, and Maat seem to have responded to it, but then it got deleted for some reason? Luckily I had copied its content. I am posting it again... sorry for the apparent wrong chronology, it should appear a couple of post above. ]

However, even supposing an artist of the 12th or 13th century had some secret technique (still unknown to modern science) to produce such a delicately faint, superficial negative image on the surface fibers of a linen cloth (only visible from 6' away)

Sorry I don't want to be polemic on every point but I need to answer to this. The artists of the 12th or 13th century had techniques that are completely unknown to us today; there is not a single human being left on the planet capable to draw, paint, design and produce art like those peasants of the middle-ages, let alone the artists of the Renaissance.

This is made evident by today's "scientific" restorations, that end up destroying forever works of art that even the botched recolorations of the 19th century had left basically preserved. I have seen with my own eyes the Venetian school of painting disappear under unscrupulous chemical wash overs, that ended up cleaning the veils and layers laid by the masters on top of the work done by the pupils. If today one wants to see a painting by Giovanni Bellini or Carpaccio, one can't. One can only see the flat, absurdly bright and vibrant preparatory work of the pupils. So much for science understanding arts.

For the rest, I certainly am not prepared on this specific topic, so I can be willing to accept the idea that maybe this shroud is 2000 years old and was really a product of Jesus' body resurrecting. Everything is possible.

It is just that, differently than you guys, I am completely unimpressed by the fact that my contemporaries, and my scientific contemporaries in particular, have no clue about a work of art of a few centuries before. I find it perfectly normal and by the book. Science (in particular science in the age of technocracy) don't get art and don't get the techniques of art. By definition: because the rules of art follow a different way than science. I am not saying this in a rhetorical, anti-scientific way. It is the way things are.

Fine arts were a product of workshops much more than they were a product of single geniuses. Knowledge had been passed through generations and recipes had been accumulated based on trial-and-error, experimentation, invention. The sheer idea of "secret society" is born out of the need to preserve these secrets (the masons). Nobody can just "crack" them with a simple reverse-engineering. What we read in art books, that we have studied techniques and know how (say) cathedrals are built, is a lie. It is pure, manifest, illusion. We don't know. These achievements are based upon experience, and only experience could retrace those steps. Maybe with several lifetimes worth of focusing on those techniques across generations we could understand how the Turin shroud was created, how about that.

[nonhocapito]

[Edit: I was making here a stupid point about the shroud not really being a negative, but then I realized I was looking at a negative image of it. Oops. Apologies ]

[reel.deal]

This is what i'm wondering about. That 'perfectly positive' image IS THE PHOTOGRAPHS' NEGATIVE.
The conventional reading.

This is what i'm questioning. Is the 'negative' REALLY the 'positive' ?
IS THE ACTUAL SHROUD IMAGE REALLY A 'NEGATIVE' ?
Lets say, for instance, that the image accurately records a battered bloodied and dirty face. right ?
So the eye-sockets, for instance, should they be '2 black eyes', already ?
or... is the 'NEGATIVE' SHROUD IMAGE a more realistic depiction ?
The pale white eyesockets representing where the cloth was 'NOT IN CONTACT' ?

Are the dark eyebrows & cheekbones swollen and dirty from the beating ?
Are the mouth & nose, nostrils and lips, darkened with traces of blood ?
Then they appear dark & positive, ON THE SHROUD...
but The Shroud image is 'negative' ?

I'm not being wilfully confusing, i'm just starting to think the 'negative' Shroud
has 'positive' elements...

The images on the Shroud are positives, the negative is 'negative' ?

maybe...

[nonhocapito]

Lets say, for instance, that the image accurately records a battered bloodied and dirty face. right ?
So the eye-sockets, for instance, should they be '2 black eyes', already ?
or... is the 'NEGATIVE' SHROUD IMAGE a more realistic depiction ?
The pale white eyesockets representing where the cloth was 'NOT IN CONTACT' ?

Are the dark eyebrows & cheekbones swollen and dirty from the beating ?
Then they appear dark & positive, ON THE SHROUD... but The Shroud image is 'negative' ?

Well the way I understand it the darker spots are supposed to be the parts in contact; the brighter spots the parts not in contact or less in contact. This works certainly if we imagine a sculpture... For a body emitting light or some sort of radiation, I wouldn't know because the phenomenon is unknown to science But it is remarkable that the facial hair were involved in the emission of light.

[nonhocapito]

As a side note, I want to note that the iconography of Christ during paleo-chrstianity did not necessarily featured Christ with facial hair:


Christ and the Apostles, Domitilla catacombs, Rome, 3d century B.C. From http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/imag ... itilla.htm

The bearded man iconography came around later, and evolved slowly. Sure maybe the folks in the catacombs had no clue. On the other hand, why would Jesus wear a beard and long hair? Was this customary in his times? Isn't this a little too similar to the iconography of Christianity?

[reel.deal]

i think its a primal thing. we instinctively look to the eyes. because they are so well defined in the negative,
we automatically assume the negative as 'most realistic'... but the strong cloth, even if wet & supple, would
unlikely make full contact with the full hollows around each upper & lower eyelid, so
we mistakenly presume the ACTUAL IMAGE to be 'negative', but its NOT, its actually the more 'realistic' POSITIVE IMAGE...

the actual more realistic 'positive' image, with the cloth just barely touching the eyes, is THE SHROUD IMAGE...
no ?