Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Where the front and back views meet. There is no provision for the thickness of the body. Either there should be a gap or the top of the head should be seen.
The shroud is one piece it is alleged to have longitudinally folded over a body. Sorry the cloth is not long enough to have covered a person of the height depicted. You have only enough cloth for 2 flat images. there is no concession made for the thickness of the body. That shroud would not cover a person of the height depicted.
Just my opinion. based on what I see in the picture. Perhaps others see it different. That cloth would not have been able to cover a person of the height depicted in the views. Not enough cloth to compensate for the thickness of the body.
Bloody good point. Damn that's a stunner. Ok, enough distance for separate imaging, but NOT to be folded over a body. I carried out a test on my own unworthy bonce.
length of face. 11 -12 inches. back of head the same. fancy that.
Space between front and back of head. c7 inches.
What does the image show? if we give c 11 -12 inches for the face, I make it only about three inches between. The Gospels no where state that Jesus was only three inches thick.
(see if I can import my image..) nope..wrong one. cyberdunce...
A Ps. Cruithne's post 12 image does not show the area of the two heads and it may look as though they are joined. There is actually an implied gap that I make c 3inches and what seems to be the top of the back head -view joining the front is -I believe - an ancient water - stain, caused when the shroud got wet when it was involved in being saved from a fire.
Another thing to look at is that Relic selling was big business in the 14th-15th Centuries. Also that surviving shroud probably was not the only "Genuine Shroud" making the rounds.
This was an era when the selling of "Holy Relics" to the Churches and to the nobility was big business.
a Thought
Quote:
Now historian Antonio Lombatti of the Università Popolare in Parma, Italy, says the Shroud of Turin is a fake, and not only that, it's not a very original one. About forty pieces of cloth purported to be the burial shroud of Jesus circulated in Europe during the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Religious relics were popular then and now.
There are numerous Versions of "Veronica's Veil" Each attested to be the real one.
Here is just one
Quote:
Physical Features
The almost transparent veil measures about 6.5 x 9.5 inches and bears dark red features of a bearded man with long hair and open eyes. The legend holds that Jesus rewarded Veronica's charity in wiping the sweat from his brow by imprinting his image into the cloth. The image on the Monoppello cloth becomes invisible depending on the angle from which the cloth is viewed.
"The fact that the face appears and disappears according to where the light comes from was considered a miracle in itself in medieval times," noted Pfeiffer. "There are few such objects in history. This is not a painting. We don't know what the material is that shapes the image, but it is the color of blood." Visions of Jesus Christ.com - Veronica's Veil
There are at least 6 of them floating around each alleged to be the original. The people in the 14th-15th century had quite a business going with relic making.
Then you have the many tons of "genuine" nails used at the crucifixion and the pieces of wood from the "original" probably could be assembled into a full size duplicate of the Eiffel tower.
The Relic business was/is a major industry.
Quote:
relics
An account of the Turin Shroud - claimed to date from the time of Christ but first recorded in about 1389 by the Bishop of Troyes (who described it as a cunning fraud) and recently dated to the 1350s - is given in Clive Prince's In His Own Image - the Real Story of the Turin Shroud (London: Bloomsbury 1995), Report on the Shroud of Turin (Boston: Houghton Mifflin 1983) by John Heller and more persuasive Inquest on the Shroud of Turin (Buffalo: Prometheus 1983) by Joe Nickell.
The Shroud is merely the most prominent of Western relics, which prior to the French Revolution included
and what Calvin in one of his more irascible moments described as enough authentic nails from the Crucifixion to fill several barrels. (Oversupply seems eternal: AA Insurance for example reported in 2008 that more Rolex Oyster watches have been recorded as lost in the Costa del Sol than have ever been manufactured.)
There is no abbey so poor as not to have a specimen. In some places there are large fragments, as at the Holy Chapel in Paris, at Poitiers, and at Rome, where a good-sized crucifix is said to have been made of it. In brief, if all the pieces that could be found were collected together, they would make a big ship-load. Yet the Gospel testifies that a single man was able to carry it.
Point taken. The only reason that this one merits any particular attention is that it is a photographic negative and is stunningly forensically good. While I am pretty sure that it can't be the shroud of Jesus (unless someone proves that pulling the shroud over the head will eliminate that shortage of inches - there is also some talk of the proportions being wrong. I believe) it demands an explanation of what it is and how it was made.
Point taken. The only reason that this one merits any particular attention is that it is a photographic negative and is stunningly forensically good. While I am pretty sure that it can't be the shroud of Jesus (unless someone proves that pulling the shroud over the head will eliminate that shortage of inches - there is also some talk of the proportions being wrong. I believe) it demands an explanation of what it is and how it was made.
I agree. it does merit attention and attempts to find how the image was made. I've often thought of what photosensitive chemicals would have been available in that era. Two immediately come to mind Silver nitrate and silver iodide. What if some artists in that era had discovered the properties of photo sensitivity. The shroud could be the world's first photograph. Or rather the first negative.
I can only think of some of the stunts I pulled as a teenager. Some chemicals that were available to us in those years no longer are readily available a neat substance I played with was silver nitrate. Discovered if I panted part of my arm with it in a dark room, Put a negative over the paint era and exposed it to a bright light and developed it with sodium theosulfate I could print photos on my skin that looked like black and white tattoos. Did lots of neat things with silver nitrate and silver iodide. I suspect the artists and alchemists of the 14th century were aware of photosensitive chemicals.
Although I am partial to the idea of a heated metal Platen in the shape of a man.
Arequipa and Woodrow it is certainly an fascinating discussion. I apologize I am on my phone so can't provide any links or photos this time. There is one detail that has me convinced that this is an image of a human and not a statue or engraving - look at the position of the right foot on the negative. Clearly this is an image of a person lying down the sole of the foot is clearly visible with the other foot in a slightly more upright position. Unfortunately we can't see the position of the feet from the front view making it impossible to say if both images were produced at the same time or separately.
Also I've been thinking more about the pinhole camera idea. Pinhole cameras produce positive images albeit upside down ones. But the original image is essentially a negative image not a positive one. (More head scratching)
Woodrow - lemon juice is very photosensitive. Possibly this was involved somehow in the process. Maybe the three of us should get together I'm sure between us we could crack this thing.
One other thing Arequipa. I don't think the proportions are wrong at all. People come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. Anatomically I think this is very convincingly human.
Sorry about typos. It is difficult to make corrections on this darn phone)
No problem. My typing is lousy on a perfectly good keyboard. The experiment used egg white and urine, I seem to recall. I'll have a think about the position. It does seem to be a supine figure.
Arequipa and Woodrow it is certainly an fascinating discussion. I apologize I am on my phone so can't provide any links or photos this time. There is one detail that has me convinced that this is an image of a human and not a statue or engraving - look at the position of the right foot on the negative. Clearly this is an image of a person lying down the sole of the foot is clearly visible with the other foot in a slightly more upright position. Unfortunately we can't see the position of the feet from the front view making it impossible to say if both images were produced at the same time or separately.
Also I've been thinking more about the pinhole camera idea. Pinhole cameras produce positive images albeit upside down ones. But the original image is essentially a negative image not a positive one. (More head scratching)
Woodrow - lemon juice is very photosensitive. Possibly this was involved somehow in the process. Maybe the three of us should get together I'm sure between us we could crack this thing.
One other thing Arequipa. I don't think the proportions are wrong at all. People come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. Anatomically I think this is very convincingly human.
Sorry about typos. It is difficult to make corrections on this darn phone)
A camera lens used in modern cameras also produces positive inverted images. the negative is the result of the photosensitive material turning darkest where the projected light is the brightest.
The same materials, lemon juice, egg albumen, milk, urine are also heat sensitive darkening with exposure to heart. this has opened up a whole world of possibilities. Thinking in terms of how blueprints used to be made. The materials for producing a negative image were available. Soaking a piece of linen in any of the above substances would have resulted in a primitive but workable form of Blueprint paper or rather Brownprint as the print would be a sepia/brown color. The materials existed, the intelligence was there. I can envision that some of the alchemists and artists played with rudimentary photographic techniques but were turned off by the images being negative.
I just remembered calotype photography looked at the works of Talbot and Le Gray.
Calotype photography was within reach of the 14th century alchemists.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
