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.
Comments
The Whip...
Okay, I will count it against you, if you insist.
So we're down to two...
The Bloodstains...
So you're telling me that this book that you are using for proof disagrees with you (you say unknown substance, the book says blood.)? My whole point, which I have stated several times is that this shroud was not hanging on the dude when he was hanging on the cross. How does his movement on the cross (which YOU stated caused the bloodstain patterns) affect something he was wrapped in after death?
The Energy Burst...
No, this is not clearer. Not in the least. How did the shroud survive such a power outburst? Are there any examples anywhere on the planet to show a dead body giving off this sort of energy? If something actually gave off the sort of energy that you are talking about, would the "holy land" not be still irradiated, at least to some extent? Please show me a study that shows the results of a power burst like this. Or is it something you're just guessing at, with absolutely no basis in facts?
Score so far...
Me, 2.
You, 0.
My two points...
1.) The Templar Treasure (no reference, just you saying you know it but don't know where from).
2.) The Whip (you asked me to count it against you, citing your own lack of evidence)
All I want is for you to do some critical thinking, and not just say "because I think it." Are you questioning your own beliefs yet? You probably should, seeing as how you can not prove (even to yourself) half of your argument.
Defend your position or abandon it. So far, it looks like it's a good thing for him that O.J. didn't hire YOU.
energy pattern: Don't fixate on the massive energy that a nuclear blast would generate, the energy could have been something much lower spread out over a period of time. The point is that the pattern of the image. Take a bedsheet and lay it over your body, notice that it does not touch your body at all points. Imagine that your body emits energy that burns or sears an image onto the sheet. Since the energy is coming from several points on your body and will strike the sheet at different angles, the image seared will be fuzzy. Why would a 14th century forger create an image in such a fashion? And, as far as I know, there is no known instance of a body giving off such energy, the point is that the image on the Shroud matches what an image created in such a fashion would look like and not a conventional artistic representation.
If you cannot find a copy of THE SHROUD OF TURIN you might find a later book by the same author on the subject which probably covers much of the same material with additions, I referenced it earlier - THE BLOOD AND THE SHROUD. My copy of THE SHROUD OF TURIN disappeared over twenty years ago and I just borrowed a copy. I am trying to read it and present the evidence Ian Wilson presents in that book.
The Bloodstains...
"Will it help to refer to them as images of bloodstains?" No. You seem to have totally missed the whole fricking point. I have explained my question several times and you just keep refusing to answer what I am asking. 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?
The Energy Pattern...
"Since the energy is coming from several points on your body and will strike the sheet at different angles, the image seared will be fuzzy."
So what you're saying here is this... because the light comes off of a round object, the closer the round object to the shroud, the more intense the image, if the energy is strong enough to leave one. I have to agree. Physics, ya know.
Also, you were the one who drew the parallel between this image and "the "nuclear shadows" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki". That brought up the question of how much energy it would take to produce the shadows from a nuclear or atomic blast. You know what? The energy required to burn an image into concrete, as happened in Japan, would instantly incinerate the shroud.
Asking a question such as "Why would a 14th century forger create an image in such a fashion?" does not in any way support your argument. This question has many different answers, and not a single one of them can be proven in any way.
Stating that you don't know how or why someone did something does not mean that he did not do it.
If "why would the forger do this?" is seriously your proof to yourself that the shroud is not forged, you really need to open your eyes.
Do you explode?
From now on, you will see the following quote at the end of my posts, just so you remember what I have asked.
"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?"
😏
So the new test dated it between 1300 and 3000 years old.
And the old test proved that the "new part" of the shroud is 1300 years old.
I fail to see your reasoning as to how the new test proves the old one wrong.
I'd do it if I really cared. 😉
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. I was under the impression that you understood this previously and it seems not.
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. The Shroud was the personal property of the King of Italy until he died and I do not know who inherited it, and I have no idea who the glass plates would belong to now, probably the same person/institution since the original photos were commissioned as part of a display around the start of the 20th century.
DODGE!
You said that these markings were consistent with someone's movements while crucifed. If the body never touched the shroud until he was dead, then how were his movements before death to blame for the images on the shroud?
And did you forget about the energy, as do you concede that point?
"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?"
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."
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.
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.
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
"Hell's teeth and pogo sticks!"
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.
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?
"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.
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."
Good quote, too.
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?
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)
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!
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.
Now, I just wrote this and it was rejected as too long. So, I am going to break it into smaller messages.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
but I really don't want to get involved
So I won't bother.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
You're telling me that the image this guy made should be identical. Maybe it will be, in about 700 years. You cannot sit there and tell me that the shroud is impervious to the effects of nature.
This man has proven that it could have been done at the time specified, with the avaliable materials.
So you're saying that if I believe in proven facts, that I will automatically take it on faith that you have "a statue to sell me". That makes no sense whatsoever.
And anyway, MY whole point had nothing to do with any of this. MY whole point was simply the fact that you were wrong when you said that bricks do not fade.
Years ago, the actual sites of the tomb and crucifixtion were disputed by the Methodist Church, mainly because Protestantism didn't exist when the sites were preserved. For some time, their claims had a bit of validity, but now have been debunked.
For those who believe, regardless of what church you attend, remember - It's about faith, not proof. Do you need a Shoud of Turin to believe? Look a bit deeper - I don't think you do. As for those who claim to be atheists, I can only wonder why they would take the time to disprove something that they don't believe in.
Happy Easter to All,
Mac
"Sub: The Final Chapter"
"on your three questions."
It was FOUR. FOUR! Learn how to read, you total fool.
1.) Templar Treasures. And you addressed this where?
2.) The Lost Whip. And you addressed this where?
3.) Body Movement While Crucified. And you addressed this where?
4.) Burst Of Energy. And you addressed this where?
"And lastly, I have always said that the Shroud is not a 14th century forgery and have never said anything explictly or implictly in contradiction of that." - Christopher Dumbass
Good for you. You stuck by your uninformed opinion. Congratulations.
I was going to respond by re-posting all of your stupid comments. It seems that I don't have to, as you consistently prove yourself an idiot without my help (just check the 'etiquette thread' you posted.)
Your entire argument now consists of "I don't know how it was done, and this is the easy answer, so I'll just accept it. I don't have to answer questions. You just have to believe my crap which is based on absolutely nothing but my own supposition."
I can guarantee that I will not respond to you again in this thread.
Don't even bother to respond to this, it's just too much of a pain in the ass to bother reading your drivel again and again to find that you have nothing to say, especially about what was asked. Perhaps if you had answered what was asked, this could have been a half-decent debate.
As it turned out, it was the equivalent of asking someone questions about water conservation, and getting a long and made-up history of how ice actually shrinks when you freeze it.
2) The whip - I said long ago that I couldn't find a reference. I can make a chain of logic to support my point but I doubt you would understand it or pay attention. However, just in case: The Fall of the Western Roman Empire is dated to A.D. 474. Prior to that, increasingly from A.D. 382 the Romans used mercenarry barbarian warbands as part of the army. These bands used their own equipment and tactics. Even if the Roman army used the whip to A.D. 474, that still leaves a gap of almost 900 years when it would not have been used. KNowledge of the whip, its use and design would have have been lost among the general loss of knowledge during that time.
3) The movement of the body on while undergoing crucifixition shows knowledge that a 14th century artist would not have had. There hadn't been crucifixitions for at least 900 years and probably more - the emperors after Constantine were, with one exception, Christian and it would have been considered blasphomous to continue the practice.
4) Science has not investigated the possibilities suggested by the preliminary investigations of the Shroud because science "knows" it can't happen just as science knew that the speed of light was infinite, space was composed of ether, the universe always existed, the sound barrier could not be broken, etc. It would appear I have a more open mind than you.
http://www.livescience.com/history/050318_reason_turin_shroud.html
Spend your whole life walking around acting and looking like a gullible idiot, JUST IN CASE there's an afterlife. Just in case, we should waste what life we KNOW we have, doing what some perverted institution has decided so that they can control you and have access to your wealth to make theirs!
As far as figuring out the whole process, my no brighter than average daughter figured out that the sun bleached out the curtains in the shape of the window, when she was 5 years old. Any doubters left?
I figured out this alternative method within the first sentence mentioning glass. Maybe 5 seconds. A couple brighter people surely could of pulled this off. The monetary gain at the time must of equated to tens of millions.
What happens when you peel an orange?
Try it.
Wrap a piece of cloth over a basket ball.
Paint a face on it. Now lay the cloth flat.
My goodness, look how distorted that face is!
People are so stupid sometimes.
As for the experimental copy not being "thin" enough well, all I can say is No Sh!t Sherlock, it hasn't been manhandled for hundreds of years. In a few centuries time it will most likely have been worn off enough to be thin enough.