nonhocapito wrote: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:
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
reel.deal wrote: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.