The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
   
Hoaxes Throughout History
Middle AgesEarly Modern1700s1800-1840s1850-1890s
1900s1910s1920s1930s1940s1950s1960s1970s1980s1990s21st Century2014
Shroud of Turin Mystery Solved
image In the debate about the Shroud of Turin, perhaps the strongest argument that the pro-Shroud side had going for it was that no one could figure out how a medieval forger could have created such a thing. How could the forger have etched a three-dimensional photo-negative image of a crucified man onto a piece of linen? Nathan Wilson has pretty much demolished this pro-shroud argument by showing that it would have been quite easy for a medieval forger to have done this. All he (or she, but probably he) would have needed is some white paint, a large piece of glass, and a piece of linen. You paint a figure of a man on the glass, place the glass over the linen, and leave it out in the sun for a couple of days. The sun then bleaches the material, thereby transferring a three-dimensional photo-negative image of whatever was painted on the glass onto the linen. It's one of those things that seems so obvious when you think about it, and answers so many questions about the shroud, that it has to be the solution. And yet it's taken centuries for someone to figure it out. Wilson has a great (and quite detailed) article in Christianity Today explaining how he went about solving the mystery. There's also a shorter article about Wilson's 'shadow shroud' on discovery.com. Finally, check out Wilson's website: shadowshroud.com. The thumbnail shows a shroud-of-turin replica that Wilson created using his method.
Religion
Posted by The Curator on Fri Mar 11, 2005


Clearly what we have here is a lack of a straight story. One is lead to believe one thing and when the facts dont fit it gets changed. This is not a bad thing forsay, but I can see where it will lead. This topic will be argued down to the old 'God did it' rule. When something cannot be explained scientifically then it becomes gods work and no amount of evidence can change that to some people. Clearly what is intended here is that some miracle process was involved in the creation of the image. Lets assume this was placed after the crucifixion, after death. I believe it took three days for Jesus to rise, again there are even different time lines for this, so lets only assume the three day period. Within this time period an image was suppose to be flashed unto the shroud. We are all aware of similar effects occuring on old televisions where the last opped image was seared on the screen for seconds, but yet this cannot apply in this case. There is not enough electricity in the human body to even begin any melding process with a fibre none the less. To believe that something so subtle yet fast (three days for this kind of reaction is unheard of) is capable of creating this would take alot of evidence to back it up. I could be mistaken, I do not know alot about electricity or burn flash process that could create this, Im just trying to be a critical thinker. If I am indeed wrong please correct me.

It goes without saying that I am an atheist but this does not affect my view towards this in the sense that I isolated this instance and approached it in a scientific view to see how it could have occured if at all aside from the medival explanation. We are all aware of Occam's Razor and therefore its application is needed in times like this, were we have two different solutions to a problem. On the one hand we have a Medieval technique that not only could have occured but we have evidence supporting that it did occur. On the other hand we have what will most likely become a 'miracle' effect that would have an image burned in three days because this was the son of god and therefore could be done in the sense that god can and will do anything.

We humans have a basic falling. We inhibit believes, some have a firm ground while others play on our ability to want it to be real. As science grows and expands it essentially kills the mystic affect of our world which existed long ago. People often see things where there is nothing, it is our nature to create order out of chaos. This is why we jump to conclusions and assume before we judge. At best the shroud is a relic of a time lost, of when the world was full of mystical animals and spells. Surely some questions have yet to be answered about the shroud but it is illogical to assume something as complexed as god when it is most likely there is a natural explanation.

"The believer is happy and the doubter is wise."
Posted by Genesis  on  Wed Mar 16, 2005  at  05:18 PM
Hell's teeth and pogo sticks!

It ain't a dodge, if the image was created after death and faithfully shows the condition of the body as it existed at the time, what's your problem? If you read the Gospel accounts you would notice that haste in getting the body into the tomb was required due to the approaching Passover Sabbath. Jesus died about 3 PM and it took time for Joseph of Arimathea to learn this, unless he was at the site, it took time for him to reach Pilate and ask for the body and it took time for Pilate to send a centurian to check the body and return with a report. Thus it would be close to sunset. Sabbath starts at sunset, and on the sabbath no work is to be done, especially work on dead bodies which would make the worker ritually impure, especially on Passover. So the unwashed body would still have the marks and blood flows from the crucifixion and scourging etc. Which is probably why the women were going to the tomb first thing Sunday morning as that would be the first time it would be legal and safe to do the washing and preperation. If the image matches what such events would put onto a body and if the image also has information, such as that about the spot of Destot that would be unlikely to be known by a 14th century forger, if other information about the image is not in accord with medieval artistic conventions, such as the identified ethnic type, then this throws doubt on it being a forgery.

I found a reference to my earlier Templar comment but now I doubt you would care. But just in case, in THE SHROUD OF TURIN is a short description of the taking of the chapter house in Paris, the headquarters of the Templars, with the source listed for the information as HISTORIE DE L'ORDRE MILITAIRE DES TEMPLIERS (1713) de Puy.
Posted by Christopher Cole  in  Tucson, AZ  on  Wed Mar 16, 2005  at  09:56 PM
Now, you have said about the energy burst that you could find no references to support your claim.

So far you have not been able to support even one of your 4 assertions. This really makes me wonder how, if you can not prove a single one of them to me, you can believe them yourself with no proof.
Posted by Rod  in  the land of smarties.  on  Wed Mar 16, 2005  at  10:30 PM
Genesis... that is what I am trying to make this guy see.

Christopher...


"The image was made after the body was laid in the tomb, the blood and injuries were on the body at that time and when the image was created the image of these were transfered to the cloth" - Posted by Christopher Cole on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 02:20 PM

"The bloodstains are consistent with crucifition where the torso raises and lowers as the person tries to breathe and gets tired" - Posted by Christopher Cole on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 08:00 PM

"How does the movement of someone being crucified relate to these markings, which were supposed to have been caused when he was already dead and removed from said cross? Was he still alive when taken down?" - Rod (numerous times)

So you are saying he was dead when he touched the shroud. Therefore your assertion that the patterns of the stains match a person's movement on the cross makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and can not be held up as proof of authenticity.

Rod, 3
Christopher, 0
Posted by Rod  in  the land of smarties.  on  Wed Mar 16, 2005  at  10:49 PM
And thank you, Christian, for giving me my new catch-phrase.

"Hell's teeth and pogo sticks!"
Posted by Rod  in  the land of smarties.  on  Wed Mar 16, 2005  at  10:53 PM
"The individual who took the photographs can't be emailed since he was an established photographer in the 19th century and quite surely is long dead, unless you have a special way of emailing the dead that no one else has."

You've misunderstood who I'm talking about. I was talking about the guy who just made the images with glass, you know, the one that started this thread.
Posted by Winona  in  USA  on  Thu Mar 17, 2005  at  10:25 AM
I owe myself an apology for thinking you educated to at least the high school level Rod. So I will get a bit more basic - if you still don't understand get your Mommy to explain the big words.

The principle is called Deductive Reasoning, it is the basis of the scientific process. Start with the fact that the image shows considerable detail and that certain deductions can be made from these details. Are these details consistent with a body having been crucified? Yes. Are the details consistent with 1st Century Roman equipment and practices? Yes. Are there details unlikely to be known by someone living in the 14th Century? Yes. Are these details consistent with medieval art? Some yes and others no. Therefore the image give evidence of being that of a man who was crucified and the evidence is credible.

The comment about the energy is more high school physics. I am sure that when you take a course in physics your teacher, being professionally trained to do exactly this, will make it more understandable. Any energy source will give off energy in non-parallel lines unless some outside agency constrains them. Non-parallel lines will diverge as the distance increases from the source. Images created by these, such as shadows, will be fuzzy around the edges. Even though the Sun is far enough away so that most of the energy lines are parallel, you can still see this effect with your shadow. The nuclear images are another example. I am not saying that the body blew up, I am saying that the image on the cloth has fuzzy edges as if created by an energy source impinging on the cloth. This is not the sort of image that a medieval artist would create, at least I know of no such image - do you?
Posted by Christopher Cole  in  Tucson, AZ  on  Thu Mar 17, 2005  at  03:53 PM
Sorry Winona for the misunderstanding. The original photos were taken using glass plates, thus my confusion.
Posted by Christopher Cole  in  Tucson, AZ  on  Thu Mar 17, 2005  at  03:55 PM
Okay, point by point.

"Start with the fact that the image shows considerable detail and that certain deductions can be made from these details."

Okay.

"Are these details consistent with a body having been crucified?" Maybe. But this is not what we're talking about here. You asserted that these markings proved it was real because they were the markings that would result from a person's movements on the cross. You conceded he was dead when he touched the shroud, so I therefore proved your assertion wrong.

"Are the details consistent with 1st Century Roman equipment and practices?" What does this have to do with any of the four things I'm asking about? Stick to the subject.

"Are there details unlikely to be known by someone living in the 14th Century?" Even if this made a difference in what I am asking, how do you think we have the knowledge of what happened then? Is it not concievable that someone knew this info then, too?

"Are these details consistent with medieval art?" What difference does that make to what I am asking?

And, by the way, the only way that the image could be made by the body inside it in the way that you assert, would be if the sheet was held perfectly flat below AND above for enough time for the image to form. If this was actually a burial shroud, the image would be much larger and more blurred, as the corpse's legs and arms would be touching the sides also.

Try it. Get someone, preferably naked and female, and cover them with paint. Have them lay down on a sheet. Place another sheet on top of them. Don't forget that the body was moved into the crypt after it was wrapped, so get somebody to help you move the body around a bit. (Leaving them there for two days is optional.) Now remove the sheets. Does your image in any way resemble the shroud?

And as for the petty high-school B.S.... Can it, you won't win by pissing me off.
Posted by Rod  in  the land of smarties.  on  Thu Mar 17, 2005  at  04:28 PM
Well if you really asseted a scientific method chris then one would not be lead to believe this is the shroud of jesus. Because science always starts from today and works its way backwards, it is not bias, it does not make conclusions that jump. Your train of thought starts with 'Jesus is the son of god' therefore everything else false into place. If we do truly take a scientific view we would be led to very different results. Lets for the sake of argument ignore the fact that this can be created in a very humanly way and lets ignore all those medieval datings. Now we could make the assertion then that it looks to be consistant with the idea of a man being cruxified. This is the best we can do without probing deeper using other methods. To make the jump to 'this is Jesus' simply defies logic and reason.

Lets introduce what we know about it. The process does not require some unnatural force, it can be replicated. Qualities you look as being that of a genuine article are also shown to exist in the replica of the shroud. Surely I can only assume you see the blurriness from the pictures of the shroud, well one should notice very similar levels of blurriness on the replica. Often we find when confronted with such relics that many arguments come up about details that could not be replicated and look to designed, yet I believe this is only because we choose to look that deep into it. If you want to look at another case such as this look at crop circles and the claims of how they could not be replicated yet they are with exact results. Now I am uncertain of what the official timeline for the shroud are but I have heard it was given medieval times, and also parts of it were dated back to the 4th century. It is pretty reasonable to assume a medieval artist could have gotten his hand on a 4th century cloth, afterall we unearth alot of materials even now. Now a person who was living in the medieval period could have had access to vaults of information about the death of jesus and other cruxificions. Surely some matches in story to the cloth have to exists, after all he would have gotten his information from the bible, as do you. Anything too different from those accounts and it would not appear to be Jesus. The reason why we probably have the shroud today is because whoever did it was an expert and knew he had to meet some requirements, this is most likely why other would-be relics are not around, because people even then had some idea of what logic was, and it would be hard to pass up a new cloth for that of one from a thousand years ago.

If you take a look at this case from the beginning, you will always find that there is no reason to believe it should be other then a very good fake of something even less credible. If there is any evidence that should point to something otherwordly please let me know, I would love to discuss it.

"The believer is happy and the doubter is wise."
Posted by Genesis  on  Thu Mar 17, 2005  at  04:31 PM
Well said, Genesis.

Good quote, too.
Posted by Rod  in  the land of smarties.  on  Thu Mar 17, 2005  at  05:34 PM
Actually, Christopher, what I have just decided is this. I will repost my original questions. Read them. Post your answers, showing either your supporting proof or admitting your lack of said proof for each of these four questions.

If you do not respond by answering these questions, and fire off another post rambling about a whole bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with what I asked, well, then that would just show that you really ARE dodging entirely.

I know you have tried to respond to some of these already, but I would just appreciate it if you could put all of the answers into a single post.

1. "Not all of the Templar treasures were found when they were surpressed." - And this statement is based on what? Do you have knowledge of lost treasure only you are privy to?

2. "The pattern of welts on the back and sides match the Roman whip, the design of which was lost after the fall of the Western Empire." - So, if the design was lost, how can it be claimed that these patterns match it?

3. "The bloodstains are consistent with crucifition where the torso raises and lowers as the person tries to breathe and gets tired." - But you say it is his burial shroud, not his shroud while he was still "on the cross". I'm not sure I understand what his breathing while crucified has to do with the blood patterns while back on terra firma. Please explain.

4. "The image is not flat as one might think, it is consistent with a burst of energy from a body with the cloth wrapped against the body" - Did I miss the burst-of-energy-from-a-body page in the textbook? What do you mean?
Posted by Rod  in  the land of smarties.  on  Thu Mar 17, 2005  at  05:53 PM
And the results of deductive reasoning are not proof, only supposition.
Posted by Rod  in  the land of smarties.  on  Thu Mar 17, 2005  at  06:53 PM
One of my all-time favorite hoaxes. as fans of hoaxes, you already know that the best ones have occured completely by accident. We do crap every day that might baffle future culture. Seems also like many christians feel better when they imagine a European-jesus. Here's one example that is based on archeaological knowledge. (Doesn't do too much good to quote Genesis when it's from the Jewish testament. If Gutenberg hadn't changed his mind about including it, christians wouldn't be reading the 'non-jesus' ancient texts.)
Also, we don't really know much about Jesus' resting place as the accounts don't match and there is no eyewitness record. Some accounts say he was NOT nailed to the cross but tied. Other's say it wasn't a cross at all but a pole (wood was scarce and execution poles have been discovered in the area).
These are all the assumptions-as-basis signs of a classic hoax. For the shroud to be real, you have to believe in some erroneous myths that are not biblical in origin.
Some relevant facts:<UL>
<LI>Jesus never carried his cross. In fact, Simon was forced to carry it (acc. to Matthew, Mark, Luke)
<LI>Jesus body was fully clothed (same)
<LI>There was no crown of thorns. That's just artistic license
<LI>Matthew and Mark mention nothing of nails and crosses. John alludes to nails afer the fact.
<LI>Jesus wasn't stabbed in the side. That's German in origin.</UL>
The whole Passion Play concept is Germanic and comes from John, the only version suggesting a dramatic crucifixion. However, John's account also refutes the existence of: The Last Supper, the betrayal of Judas, the miracles, etc. Even so, the only mention of blood in John comes from Jesus's prediction of his fate - not from the description of what came after the arrest.
Then there's Matthew which says that when Jesus died, all the surrounding tombs burst forth with Zombies that invaded the city (27:52-53, depending on which translation and version)
Posted by jimmyjay  on  Fri Mar 18, 2005  at  11:36 PM
In reading over some of the above posts, I'm amazed how much of our culture's concept of christianity is based on Hollywood and popular myth. From there, people try to make the shroud fit one particular man in one particular place and time, disregarding anything learned from this site or Alex's book (see assumptions of blood stains, etc.).
A case in point.
People hear about the Catholic-only Concept of Immaculation. They then transfigure it to Immaculate Conception. They then jump to an assumption that it has something to do with Biological Conception (unknown when Immaculation was invented) followed by the conclusion that "Immaculate Conception means that Mary was a virgin that gave birth". It has nothing to with births or jesus. In fact,it has to do with the Concept of Ascension. The conception is, for females to Ascend to heaven, they have to be sainted and absolved of sin (immaculation). Now apply just this one modern misinterpretation to the assumptions made about the Passion in the book of John. Therein lies the pre-existing gullibiliies which lead to erroneous applications of solutions: perfect hoax material!
Posted by jimmyjay  on  Sat Mar 19, 2005  at  12:08 AM
Where on the shroud is the top of the head?
The image has the front forehead connected to the back of the head. If the shroud was not touching the top of the head there should be a space between the front and back image. If it was touching the top of the head should connect the front and back image. A big mistake here so it seems a forgery.
Posted by Thinking  on  Sat Mar 19, 2005  at  06:41 AM
Rod, you have come across as a moronic asshole who has driven me mad with your posts to this thread. And I am sure you feel the same. I just realized why. You are demanding that I prove a proposition I am not making. You demand I prove that the Shroud is a miraculous item, the actual burial shroud of Jesus. I have been arguing that it is not a 14th century forgery. Is the Shroud a miraculous relic? I don't know and I don't care. I was raised as a Low-Church Episcopalian, which if you know what that means (and I realize few do anymore, even Episcopalians) you would know my distain for relics and such.

Now, I just wrote this and it was rejected as too long. So, I am going to break it into smaller messages.
Posted by Christopher Cole  in  Tucson, AZ  on  Sat Mar 19, 2005  at  03:42 PM
In regards to your last post, what a load of bullshit. I took direct quotes from YOUR posts and asked you to explain.

This has nothin to do with the shroud baeing fake or not. It has to do with you being smart enough to actually read what I have written and respond to it without going off on a tangent that really has fuck all to do with what I asked.

And doing that repeatedly.

Now, answer my questions or admit that you were wrong about your assertions.
Posted by Rod  in  the land of smarties.  on  Sat Mar 19, 2005  at  03:49 PM
Continuing:
1)Yves Delage, Professor of Comparitive Anatomy Sorbonne, gave a report to the Paris Academy of Sciences in 1902. This was publish by Paul Vignon, later Professor of Biology at Institute Catholique, Paris. The report covered an examination of the photograpghic images and determined evidence of several blosw to the face, described as not likely to be noticed by a layman. The report also described the images of wounds around the top of the head and found them consistent with a cap or crwon of thorny material. Paul Vignon said of these images, one in paticular, "No painter, in his most elaborate work, has ever risen to such exactitude." The report also describes the images on the back, and some on the front as well, as being from a scourging by a Roman flagra. The report shows that the scourging was done by two men who were of different heights.
2) Dr. Pierre Barbet, Chief Surgeon of St. Joseph's Hospital Paris, conducted experiments on cadavers and amputated limbs. The report previousl mentioned described blood flow on the arms and Dr. Barbet discovered that the origin of these bloodflows was from the area known as the space of Destot. He discovered that nails driven through this space would not break bones, it had been previously thought that bones would break rendering the area useless for crucifixtion. He also discovered that nails driven through this space by stimulating a nerve in the area would force the thumb to roll up. Source: A DOCTOR AT CALVARY translated 1953.
3)Dr. Max Frei, Head of the Zurich Police Scientific Laboratory, began an investigation of pollen found on the Shroud in 1974. He discovered that pollen from Palestine and Turkey were present as well as pollen from Western Europe and Italy. The Shroud had been exposed to the air in these regions long enough to acquire the pollen. Information given in personal interviews with Ian Wilson.
Posted by Christopher Cole  in  Tucson, AZ  on  Sat Mar 19, 2005  at  03:59 PM
Continuing:
4) Professor Frache, Modena, and Professor Filogamo, University of Turin, conducted seperate examinations of various threads to determine if there was actual blood on the Shroud. They found no blood, nor pain or any other pigment that a medieval artist would have used. Turin Commission on the Holy Shroud, LA S. SINDONE, supplement to RIVISTA DIOCESANA TORINESE, 1976.
5) The professors also discovered that the stains did not penetrate the linen threads, even under high magnification. Above.
6)In 1977 a conference was held in Albuquerque NM on the Shroud. Ian Wilson attended and used his personal knowledge, as well as interviews with Dr. John Jackson, Capt. USAF, later Assistant Professor at the Air Force Academy. Using the equipment and techniques that JPL was then using on the Viking Mission photographs image specialist Jean Lorre and supervisor Donald Lynn discovered the image of a small coin consistent with a 1st Century lepton over each eye. These images would not be visible to the naked eye. As of the time of the publication of THE SHROUD OF TURIN details confirming the identity of the coin had not been found. Dr. Jackson conducted a preliminary spectrographic analysis using a color photograph of the Shroud and discovered that the image had the same spectrographic results as the burn marks from the 1534 fire. Image analysis determines that the image on the Shroud is consistent with a 3-dimensional object being projected onto the cloth, it is not consistent with a flat image such as a photograph or painting being projected onto the cloth.
Posted by Christopher Cole  in  Tucson, AZ  on  Sat Mar 19, 2005  at  04:14 PM
Summation:
THE SHROUD OF TURIN is over 250 pages, dense with facts and argument, and over 11 pages of footnotes. I have not covered more than a fraction of the material presented in the book. However, the level of anatomical detail, the accuracy of that detail, the correlation with 1st Century equipment, the lack of pain or other pigment, and the images of coins over the eyes found in 1977 all tell against the Shroud being a 14th Century forgery. Medieval artists always depicted the Crucifixtion with the nails going through the palms, not the wrist as the Shroud does; they alway show the thumbs, and the Shroud does not - the Shroud matches anatomical data discovered in the 1930's, long after the supposed forger created it; the Shroud has no signs of paint or other pigment, a forger would have left traces of such; and details that are presented in THE SHROUD OF TURIN which I have not presented here for lack of time and space. I suggest you read the book, or if you can't find it, read THE BLOOD AND THE SHROUD by the same author. I am sure that the same material is covered in that book as well as newer material. There is a copy in my local library and I do not live in a major city like New York, L.A., or San Diego, or Chicago, etc. If your local library doesn't have a copy they should be able to get one through inter-library loan.

I have to return the copy of THE SHROUD OF TURIN I borrowed and I have no idea when I can borrow it again.
Posted by Christopher Cole  in  Tucson, AZ  on  Sat Mar 19, 2005  at  04:24 PM
Look, Christopher. I know you can read. Why the hell are you once again not saying a single word about what I asked?

Where in any of this extensive bullshit of yours do you offer ANYTHING relating to supporting what you have said?

ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE.

You consistently fail to answer my questions, which I have re-posted several times.

A direct quote from one of my most recent posts..."Actually, Christopher, what I have just decided is this. I will repost my original questions. Read them. Post your answers, showing either your supporting proof or admitting your lack of said proof for each of these four questions."

You never addressed a single one of these that I have asked you about. NOT ONE.

Call me a whatever you want. When you fail to submit proof of even ONE of your assertions, and consistently dodge the question, all that you are doing is proving your own inadequacy of knowledge, and it shows, not only to me but to anyone who reads this.

Now, either answer my questions, or do not bother to respond. If you fail to answer them yet again, and just post a bunch of irrelevant crap, I'll just start HELPING you make an ass out of yourself by going through your old posts and digging out the quotes with which you prove your own ignorance and lack of knowledge.

There are MANY instances when you contradict what you previously said, and make statments not based on anything but your imagination.

Just answer my questions, that's all I want.

And as for telling me you had to return the book, I believe that you probably either A.) Never had it in your hands to begin with, or B.) Can't find the answers you need in it and are now asking me to forget you said they were in there.

Now PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
Posted by Rod  in  the land of smarties.  on  Sat Mar 19, 2005  at  05:01 PM
What if you crucified someone, wrapped them up and let the blood transfer to the cloth. If the cloth was exposed to sunlight would the blood be enough of a sunblock to enhance the pattern? I also wonder if any blocking substance(wood pattern) make glass unecessary.
Posted by jr  in  winnipeg  on  Sun Mar 20, 2005  at  04:36 PM
I was going to reply to this
but I really don't want to get involved
So I won't bother.
Posted by Sharruma  on  Mon Mar 21, 2005  at  12:36 AM
Seems Nate
Posted by Mark K.  in  Moscow, Id.  on  Tue Mar 22, 2005  at  09:20 PM
Bricks don't fade?

Do a little experiment. Take an old brick that's been laying in the sun for as long as possible. Break it open. Look at the color.

Betcha a gazillion bucks you'll see that it's faded.

And they already proved that the glass was indeed avaliable at the time.
Posted by Rod  in  the land of smarties.  on  Tue Mar 22, 2005  at  11:00 PM
Rod,
The point is that red ochre maintains it's color in sunlight, it does not fade. Sorry, it's a fact.
WHO proved 'that the glass was indeed avaliable at the time'? Who's the 'they' in your statement? Did you even look at the site I posted? Have you tried to do any historical research on the state of glass making in the 14th century?
Like I said, these are only a couple of serious concerns about Nate's work there are many. Another...The image is NOT a dye of any sort. The image does not penetrate the linen. It varies in thickness from 180-600 nanometers, about the thickness of a bacterium. There is no way the image present on the shroud could be formed using Nate's process, sorry. One can make an image that APPEARS similar to the one on the shroud with Nate's experiment, but then the guy with the chainsaw can make something that appears similar to the sculpture David.

Mark K.
Posted by Mark K.  on  Wed Mar 23, 2005  at  04:18 PM
Look, Mark. Do not bother to post these same inane questions that have alreday been answered. Go back and read the thread. I'm not gonna go through and dig out all the info that is already here. Someone else has already done it. And if you're too lazy to read the damned thing, don't post.

As for ochre not fading? I never disputed that at all. I don't know if it does or not. I disputed your claim that bricks do not fade.

So exactly what is the difference between the shroud and one just like it? Faith, and that's it. If it can be duplicated, which it has, how can you say there is no other explanation for it's existence than divine intervention?
Posted by Rod  in  the land of smarties.  on  Wed Mar 23, 2005  at  06:25 PM
This all reminds me of an argument I once got in with some people over Bigfoot. They kept insisting that the Bigfoot prints found in the '50s had to be from a real Bigfoot because they could NEVER have been faked. They had a whole variety of reasons for this (prints too far apart, too deep in the mud, etc.). Therefore, they concluded, Bigfoot had to be real.

I'm getting the same feeling with the Shroud of Turin argument. Its supporters just keep insisting that the shroud CANNOT have been faked, because a forger could never have done x, y, or z.

So basically belief in things like bigfoot and the shroud of turin depends upon the assumption that humans are too stupid and dim-witted to be able to figure out how to fake things. From my point of view, that's a very misguided assumption.
Posted by The Curator  in  San Diego  on  Wed Mar 23, 2005  at  06:39 PM
Rod,
First of all I'm not a 'shroud supporter'. My opinion is that it probably is a fake, possibly not, but it probably is. My only point in posting here is that if it is a fake it couldn't have been faked using Nathan's process. Please don't choose to ignore the fact that the image isn't made of any dye, and the fact that the image depth(180-600 nanometers)means Nathan's process couldn't have accounted for it. Those are just two problems Nathan's experiment hasn't dealt with there are many more. If you want to close your eyes and 'have faith' that Nathan is right, well fine. That's up to you. Seems most of us would be well served to ask a few questions. The whole point is that Nate did NOT create a duplicate he created something that looks like the shroud image in SOME ways, in other ways Nathan's image is not like the shroud image at all. If you're willing to buy that I've got a statue out back I'd like to sell you.
Mark K.
Posted by Mark K.  on  Wed Mar 23, 2005  at  07:40 PM
Comments: Page 3 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 
Commenting is no longer available in this channel entry.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.