• Forums Software Updates

    The forums will be undergoing updates on Sunday 13th October 2024.
    Little to no downtime is expected.
  • We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
Here's a thought - maybe it's the image of a Crusader? I'm sure I read that the Saracens would occasionally crucify them if captured.

I'm more inclined to believe it was fabricated as a showpiece to get bums on seats for the Easter celebrations. I bet there was money to be made from pilgrims wanting to see that relic. Which brings me to my main concern. There is little contemporary documentation of Jesus, so how 'convenient' this one-off itwm just happened to turn up as church property.

To me, the figure is exactly what people in those days would have expected to see. The figure could have been a carved statue covered with the cloth, treated with chemicals and baked. Blood could have been added to show the evidence of wounds of The Passion.
The fact it looks more like a brass rubbing or bas relief rather than a distorted image that would be the result of wrapping something around a miraculous man leads me to think it's a fabricated hoax object.
 
There are a few flaws with the straightforward hoax paradigm (though I would instinctly prefer it).

As I understand it, the shroud image is a photonegative image. That is, precisely the inverse of a brass-rubbing, or a vivofrictive contact print.

There are also indications that the image itself is not a deposition upon the fibres, but an intrinsic change of shade within the shafts/body of the threads itself, possibly through a photomelanotic or thermal shading process.

This could be the Holy Spirit ...or

My point is (as some commentators believe) it may also have been a non-supernatural archaic protophotographic hoax. A number of people believe that Da Vinci (and others) may actually have had working knowledge of the camera obscura techniques, and the photoprojective capabilities of water-filled globes and glasses (these were used to magnify candle-light from back to the earliest days of glass-working/blowing).

I seem to remember reading somewhere that there are some indications of perspective distortion with the captured image consistent with photogenerative techniques.

Therefore- perhaps not truly supernatural...but possibly not as conventionally-false as some reductionists might expect.
 
A number of people believe that Da Vinci (and others) may actually have had working knowledge of the camera obscura techniques

Caravaggio must have.

David Hockney's Secret Knowledge -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387965/?ref_=nm_flmg_slf_19


I haven't seen this since it was on TV but I am quite sure that in it he says that the Arnolfini Portrait could not have been done without a lens. The chandelier would have been impossible to paint as it is in the finished version.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnolfini_Portrait
 
That Arnolfini Marriage revealed for the sham it was!


arnolfiniMelvin.png


One again, Mr. Melvin, with less of the pout . . .

Arnolfini_Portrait_1.jpg



What do you mean, the baby is going to be mixed-race? :crazy:
 
Caravaggio must have.

David Hockney's Secret Knowledge -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387965/?ref_=nm_flmg_slf_19


I haven't seen this since it was on TV but I am quite sure that in it he says that the Arnolfini Portrait could not have been done without a lens. The chandelier would have been impossible to paint as it is in the finished version.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnolfini_Portrait

Problem is, few people take Hockney's theory seriously at all. I certainly don't.

The shroud was most likely made the same way they made other images at the time: by painting it. One needn't invent hugely complicated theories here. Or if you do, they need to be clear and testable, and that is one problem with the 'shroudists': they can't actually tell you what their theory is and how it can be tested.
 
Problem is, few people take Hockney's theory seriously at all. I certainly don't.

The shroud was most likely made the same way they made other images at the time: by painting it. One needn't invent hugely complicated theories here. Or if you do, they need to be clear and testable, and that is one problem with the 'shroudists': they can't actually tell you what their theory is and how it can be tested.

Actually an Italian scientist did reproduce a shroud image using only materials available in the middle ages....

 
Actually an Italian scientist did reproduce a shroud image using only materials available in the middle ages....

Yup, such a rubbing is also a possibility, and at least on the face of it, this guy's idea looks credible.
 
I've not yet watched the video, but again I puzzle over two fundamental anti-hoax points...
  • It is a photo-negative image, and only became fully-seen with the advent of early photographic processing.
  • There is no evidence of the fabric having any detectable paint/dye/tincture upon the surface of the threads....instead, the fabric itself is changed in shade, apparently through either a thermal, chemical or photonic process
See this 2015 BBC summary of the scientific tests up to that date:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33164668
 
It's been years since I paid much attention to the Shroud debates, so the following may have been obsoleted by recent events of which I'm unaware ...

The biggest issue lies in the fact no portion of the Shroud's material 'containing' the image has ever been removed and subjected to analysis.

As I recall, it was visual analysis alone* that led to the claim the image is not at the fabric / threads' surface, but deeper within the material.

* By this I mean the conclusion was reached by merely looking at the relevant areas under magnification as opposed to examining 'image-bearing' threads removed from the Shroud.

The pieces removed to date (e.g., for the initial radiocarbon analyses) were taken from peripheral (non-'image-bearing') areas.

The only materials subjected to chemical (etc.) analysis to date have been non-image-bearing mini-swatches of fabric and loose debris vacuumed off the Shroud's surface.

I have no reason to dispute the claim the image is 'contained' within the threads rather than on their surface ends. However, this settles nothing, and history has shown it merely paved the way for all sorts of subsequent Shroud-believer hand-waving.

I've long suspected more attention should be given the fact the Shroud has survived multiple fires (notice the scorched areas). Few analyses I've seen have delved beyond the possibilities for imparting the original image into the issues of whether / how the image's purportedly anomalous physical features could have been secondary side-effects of its having been 'baked' on multiple occasions.*

* As I recall, the most severe fire it survived - the one inducing the burned places - occurred while the Shroud was folded and enclosed in a reliquary.
 
Problem is, few people take Hockney's theory seriously at all. I certainly don't.

The shroud was most likely made the same way they made other images at the time: by painting it. One needn't invent hugely complicated theories here. Or if you do, they need to be clear and testable, and that is one problem with the 'shroudists': they can't actually tell you what their theory is and how it can be tested.

Well, I spent many a year working with exactly that technique of drawing using a lens...
How many of us here have worked with or remember that cutting edge of graphic kit, The Grant Projector?

I even bought one from old work and used it at home.


http://mikedempsey.typepad.com/graphic_journey_blog/2014/08/the-grant-gone-but-not-forgotten.html
 
Last edited:
I have an art projector, though not the same as the Grant.
It projects a sheet of paper onto a wall or a canvas.
 
I've not yet watched the video, but again I puzzle over two fundamental anti-hoax points...
  • It is a photo-negative image, and only became fully-seen with the advent of early photographic processing.
So Jesus was blond after all... :)

  • There is no evidence of the fabric having any detectable paint/dye/tincture upon the surface of the threads....instead, the fabric itself is changed in shade, apparently through either a thermal, chemical or photonic process
Or so some claim. Others claim that there is pigment on it. And for every single claim made by one group, there is a counter-claim by another. Apparently, when it comes to the shroud, everyone sees what they want to see, which is why I no longer pay much attention to either side in the debate - it's pretty difficult to evaluate such widely divergent claims.

There is a simple test that can be done, and that, for some reason, no one has tried: cover a volunteer in paint, then wrap him in linen, and see what kind of image you get from that. I'll wager that you will get nothing remotely resembling the image on the shroud. Thus, whatever made that image, it was not made by blood, sweat and tears from a crucified man being deposited on the shroud after the body was wrapped.

To some extent, what we have here is a Piltdown Man or Voynich manuscript problem: a rare or unique and fragile artifact, the owners of which will not let it be freely examined by just anyone. And thus, to some extent the scientific process is stymied.
 
Well, I spent many a year working with exactly that technique of drawing using a lens...
How many of us here have worked with or remember that cutting edge of graphic kit, The Grant Projector?

I even bought one from old work and used it at home.

http://mikedempsey.typepad.com/graphic_journey_blog/2014/08/the-grant-gone-but-not-forgotten.html

Indeed, but as far as I know, Grant projectors were not available to Renaissance artists. They could in principle have made something similar from materials available, but there isn't much evidence that they did, or at least that they extensively used it for painting. Thus far, Hockney has not been able to paint anything remotely resembling a Caravaggio using such projectors or camera obscura or whatever. In the meantime, contemporary realist painters trained in the classical tradition routinely achieve the very same level of accuracy and realism that Hockney apparently believe is impossible to achieve without using optical aids, by using nothing more than their well trained eyes.

Which is to say, Hockney is trying to work out a solution to something that isn't a riddle in the first place. We have a very good idea of how artists have worked over the past few centuries.
 
Last edited:

Here are the particulars on the article cited (Journal of Forensic Sciences):

A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin*
Matteo Borrini Ph.D.
Luigi Garlaschelli M.Sc.
First published: 10 July 2018
https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13867
*
Presented at the 66th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, February 17‐22, 2014, in Seattle, WA; and the 67th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, February 16‐21, 2015, in Orlando, FL.

... And here's the abstract:

An investigation into the arm and body position required to obtain the blood pattern visible in the image of the Shroud of Turin was performed using a living volunteer. The two short rivulets on the back of the left hand of the Shroud are only consistent with a standing subject with arms at a ca 45° angle. This angle is different from that necessary for the forearm stains, which require nearly vertical arms for a standing subject. The BPA of blood visible on the frontal side of the chest (the lance wound) shows that the Shroud represents the bleeding in a realistic manner for a standing position while the stains at the back—of a supposed postmortem bleeding from the same wound for a supine corpse—are totally unrealistic. Simulation of bleeding from the nail wounds contacting wood surfaces yielded unclear results.

SOURCE: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1556-4029.13867
 
During this Christmas Eve, there was a curious (possibly History Channel?) documentary programme on tv regarding attempts to obtain viable DNA samples from the Turin Shroud, upon which to propound a genetic descendancy from Jesus (presumably right up to the present population).

Normally I would've watched this programme like a hawk, but offline Christmastime duties meant I only saw chunks of it. Which may have been a blessing, as it was one of the most unscientific confirmation-bias-riddled pieces of pseudofactual partiality I've seen in ages.

I took a bit of a dislike to the bearded uber-enthusiastic 'bible scholar' "street scientist" guy, and the whole thing was just a ghastly mashup of the wavy-camera style of 'Pimp My Ride' blended with a B-movie whodunnit.

It might've had some redeeming nuggets in it, but damned if I could see any.

Key worries/niggles I had:
  • Viability of DNA samples after 2 millennea of weathering (opinions seem to vary on this, but)
  • DNA cross-contamination. Even if it's just a CE1500s forgery, it will have been handled by thousands of sweaty palms over its lifetime
  • Presumption of era (ie a setting-aside of any contrary C-data)
  • The 'John the Baptist' reliquary hunt, after mid-way. Just what was that really meant to be, apart from filler?
  • The 'expert insights' edited in. Not confidence-inspiring.
Maybe it was great, and I got it all wrong. But I don't think so.

Any other witnesses /opinions about the programme? (I will admit, they did also briefly mention the Jacques de Molay theory)
 
While we're talking about unscientific approaches:

'The Precise Image of What Jesus Looked Like': 3-D Replica Created from Shroud of Turin

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/cwn/201...like-3-d-replica-created-from-shroud-of-turin

Apparently, Jesus was tall, handsome, ripped, and with a few tribal tattoos would fit right in with the surfer scene at Bondi Beach. Apparently.

However, here's some actual historical context - showing pretty conclusively that the shroud was one of many which were used as part of a medieval Easter ritual. Fits right in with the carbon dating, too.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321162644_TOWARDS_A_MEDIEVAL_CONTEXT_FOR_THE_TURIN_SHROUD
 
Last edited:
Some Interesting experiments.

In an attempt to prove that the Turin Shroud—a strip of linen that some people believe was used to wrap Jesus’s body after his crucifixion and carries the image of his face—is real, researchers have strapped human volunteers to a cross and drenched them in blood. Most mainstream scientists agree the shroud is a fake created in the 14th century,

The mock crucifixions are the most reliable recreations yet of the death of Jesus, the researchers suggest in an online abstract of a paper to be presented next week at a forensic science conference in Baltimore, Maryland (abstract E73 on p. 573 here). And they are the latest in a tit-for-tat series of tests, academic rebuttals, and furious arguments over the provenance—or lack thereof—of the centuries-old religious artifact. But the researchers hope the experiment will “support the hypothesis of Shroud authenticity in some new and unexpected ways.”

The research team from the Turin Shroud Center of Colorado in Colorado Springs would not comment on the crucifixion experiments before presenting them to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences’s (AAFS’s) annual meeting on 21 February. But the abstract describes "an experimental protocol by which special wrist and foot attachment mechanisms safely and realistically suspend the male subjects on a full-size cross."

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...s-and-added-blood-bid-prove-turin-shroud-real
 
If it is a hoax, whichever period of History it was created in, why aren't there more? As has been pointed out there was a huge trade in a relics in the Middle Ages, if someone knocked one up and started raking in cash, why no make more? And someone else my well be "inspired" work out the technique and make their own? It seems there were more doing the rounds, though we don't know how similar they were - they may have been comparatively crude.

Read Wesselow''s book a few year ago and felt it was interesting was more convinced by his arguments of the unique nature of shroud and the evidence it may pre-date the carbon dating than I was for it's putative influence on early Christianity. I don't know what to think but have always been struck by the fact there seems to only be one, which to me suggests an "accident" rather than something covert and deliberate.
 
Well....wasn't it carbon dated to that time period 15 or 14 th century...showing it was a fake..?
I had read somewhere once that a few people thought it was the shroud of Jacques De Molay...the master Templar.
'Accident' or not I certainly don't think it was of Jesus.
 
We can now all be like Ned Flanders and own our own Shroud of Turin beach towels (shower curtains too)! ...

On a faintly related note ... A UK historian is claiming the Shroud of Turin is actually a tablecloth from Burton on Trent. His theory involves Templars and a commemorative statue of the Fisher King.
Famous Turin shroud 'actually a tablecloth made in the Midlands' claims Brit historian

Many people see the Shroud of Turin as Christianity’s most holy relic – the cloth that Jesus’s followers wrapped his body in after the crucifixion.

But David Adkins has a different theory. He claims it is in fact a tablecloth - made in Burton upon Trent in Staffordshire.

The anthropologist and historian has come to his shocking conclusion after studying the lives of medieval monks in Burton, and researching their dealings with the Knights Templar. ...
FULL STORY: https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/famous-turin-shroud-actually-tablecloth-26457978
 
On a faintly related note ... A UK historian is claiming the Shroud of Turin is actually a tablecloth from Burton on Trent. His theory involves Templars and a commemorative statue of the Fisher King.

it had to be the Templars...
 
Back
Top