Shroud of Turin

quote:

---

Won't work. All kinds of radiation so far discovered are isotropic - non directional - in normal gravity and magnetic fields, so the image would be a 360 deg panpramic picture of a face. In order to have the full-frontal face of the shroud, you have to postulate a hitherto unknown gravitationally anisotropic field.

​

To have any credibility as an explanation, it would require a proof independent of the shroud itself.

---

lol I think I got confused with something else. Looking around the net, it seems that a guy named Stephen Mattingly proposes that the facial imprint was caused by bacteria-in this case he used bacteria called Staphylococcus epidermidis, which is commonly found on the skin. He estimated that during the crucifixion the number of bacteria could have multiplied 100x within the wounds, culturing a biofilm capable of absorbing water from the surroundings.After killing the bacteria, he then smeared the stuff on his skin (!) then applied a linen to the area, then allowing it to dry, then peeled it off-the bacterial imprint was similar in quality to that of the shroud. The bacteria in the shroud may have died, then gradually oxidised causing the stains.Interestingly enough, near the facial imprint were two faint imprints; one of a coin that was minted around 29AD, during the reign of Emperor Tiberius, and another if a lepton (a copper piece) from the reign of Pontius Pilate. Of course, you might be wondering why they'd bother putting coins near the eyes of the face- it was Jewish custom at the time of Jesus' death to place coins over both eyes of the corpse.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 01-06-2004]

And just how did they type the supposed blood? From what I've read, the shroud was in a fire in 1532 in which the silver box it was kept in melted. If the melting point of silver is 961C, I'm sure it's well above the point at which proteins denature.From
Page not found | The University of Iowa - The University of Iowa

---

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

LOL and you actually think the resolution on the shroud is such that you can see minting dates of faint imprints of coins?From Barrie Schwortz, the official photographer for STURP

quote:

---

And just how did they type the supposed blood? From what I've read, the shroud was in a fire in 1532 in which the silver box it was kept in melted. If the melting point of silver is 961C, I'm sure it's well above the point at which proteins denature.

---

If the entire shroud was affected, I'd similarly imagine that radiocarbon dating could also possibly be affected, not only by the biofilm. Of course, that doesn't alter your point. You'd have to ask them not me Personally, it wouldn't matter too much for me if the Shroud was fake or real; it's just an interesting (and contreversial) artefact.

quote:

---

LOL and you actually think the resolution on the shroud is such that you can see minting dates of faint imprints of coins?

---

You can always see for yourself; 国内精品久久久久精品_日本乱理伦片在线观看中文字幕_人妻少妇不卡无码视频_最激烈的床震娇喘视频

"....not the speculation of Shroud supporters...."This is your quote, and I believe I know what you mean, but are you also saying that anyone that "supports" the Shroud - that their evidence is illegitimate ?If this is true, then, does the same standard apply to non-supporters and their evidence against it ?Just wondering.....I will post the evidence I have in the next day or two.

You think that is seeing for ourselves? All we can see are images that have been processed in some way. The original images of the shroud don't seem to show the coin images. How did those images get "enhanced"? What was done to do that?How are the "resolution" questions answered? Why isn't the entire image amenable to such enhancement?The "enhancement" looks a lot like added lines to emphasize a pattern that the person thinks they see. That is not how image enhancement is done. I would like a detailed description of the enhancement algorithms and why they didn't enhance the image around them.Without the 'enhancement' there is no image.

---

Common sense isn't

So you are now saying that speculations should be taken as fact. Or is it that speculations should be accepted as fact Iiuf they agrtee with what you want to be true ?And if you feel at all insulted by that then just consider this. I meant EXACTLY what I said. When I said "speculation" I meant "speculation".

There's another inconsistency. The right eye pattern is from the NEGATIVE image while the left eye pattern is from the POSITIVE.I would also like to ask why coin images should show up at all. If the image was produced by bacteria from the skin then shouldn't real coins show up as blank areas ? It looks like we have to reject one idea or the other.

blitz77

quote:

---

ol I think I got confused with something else. Looking around the net, it seems that a guy named Stephen Mattingly proposes that the facial imprint was caused by bacteria-in this case he used bacteria called Staphylococcus epidermidis, which is commonly found on the skin. He estimated that during the crucifixion the number of bacteria could have multiplied 100x within the wounds, culturing a biofilm capable of absorbing water from the surroundings.

​

After killing the bacteria, he then smeared the stuff on his skin (!) then applied a linen to the area, then allowing it to dry, then peeled it off-the bacterial imprint was similar in quality to that of the shroud. The bacteria in the shroud may have died, then gradually oxidised causing the stains.

---

Won't work. Same objection. This will, again, produce a panoramic view of the head - a 180/360 deg. image.Try it yourself. Wrap a piece of paper round your head, ear to ear. Trace out the major features: nose, mouth, eyes, ears and the outline. Unfold the paper. You get, not a portrait view, as in the shroud, but an "unwrapped" view of the, basically, cylindrical, head.The key point about the image is that it is a flat, portrait style image. This cannot, by any mechanism, be produced from a body after the shroud material has been wrapped round the head.The radiation theory can be "rescued" - although my objections to mechanism still stand - if you assume the shroud was held flat above the face. The bacteria theory cannot be supported in any way given the portraiture nature of the image.

quote:

---

Interestingly enough, near the facial imprint were two faint imprints; one of a coin that was minted around 29AD, during the reign of Emperor Tiberius, and another if a lepton (a copper piece) from the reign of Pontius Pilate. Of course, you might be wondering why they'd bother putting coins near the eyes of the face- it was Jewish custom at the time of Jesus' death to place coins over both eyes of the corpse

---

The same people have prodiuced all sorts of images - flowers etc - from the shroud. Unfortunately the thechnique of image enhancement is highly subjective: if you like something, you keep it, if not, throw it away and try again.Remember the "Face on Mars" - a wholly subjective artifact of image enhancement. Later, better, photogrpahs showed a normal mountain.The technique, as applied to the shroud is all but useless.

In Post #16 above, Blitz77 offers, "Mattingly proposes that the facial imprint was caused by bacteria-in this case he used bacteria called Staphylococcus epidermidis, which is commonly found on the skin ... after killing the bacteria, [Mattingly] then smeared the stuff on his skin (!) then applied a linen to the area, then allowing it to dry, then peeled it off-the bacterial imprint was similar in quality to that of the shroud. The bacteria in the shroud may have died, then gradually oxidised causing the stains."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Could a creative artist attempting to capitalize on relic merchandizing produce the shroud say in 1100 or 1400 CE have used a corpse to achieve the same effect as Mattingly did?
----------------------------------------------------------------------Blitz offers more: "Interestingly enough, near the facial imprint were two faint imprints; one of a coin that was minted around 29AD, during the reign of Emperor Tiberius, and another if a lepton (a copper piece) from the reign of Pontius Pilate."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coins historically have enjoyed extreme longivity both in circulation and in private collections. It certainly would not be unusual for a coin minted in the First Century to remain in circulation or in a private collection in the 14th or 15th Century. In fact, one can still purchase coins from biblical times and places for a relatively low prices.It's interesting that some folks have attempted to prove pre-Columbian European (particularly Roman, Greek, or Phoenician) exploration of North America based upon the discovery by 18th - 19th Century frontiersmen and explorers of European coins in the possession of Native Americans living in the interior regions of North America. This idea is debunked by the recorded use by 16th Century European navigators of bags of cheap ancient copper coinage (of which there was a glut) as ballast for trans-Atlantic voyages during the age of exploration. The navigators found that bags of copper coins sat more firmly in place than ballast rocks, did not absorb water like bags of sand, and were negotiable to Central American natives who valued copper as highly as they did gold.Wouldn't a creative relic producer use coins that would appear to validate the relic he was creating, thereby raising its value on the market? The two coins Blitz names would be relics in and of themselves for persons wanting something from the time and place of the revered individual, and a relics dealer would have access to such coins.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Blitz concludes, "Of course, you might be wondering why they'd bother putting coins near the eyes of the face- it was Jewish custom at the time of Jesus' death to place coins over both eyes of the corpse."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The custom of putting coins over both eyes of a corpse certainly is not soley a Jewish custom, nor is it a custom common only to the First Century.One also must consider that Roman coins were considered abhorant to Jews because they were imprinted with human busts and considered items of idolatry. The money changers working at the Temple in Jerusalem were there for the specific purpose of exchanging Roman and other idolatrous coinage for coins acceptable as offerings at the Temple. There is no way that an observant Jew of Jesus's day would put Roman coins on a Jewish corpse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's ...Pax.

MarkAustin and others have correctly pointed out that you cannot produce a "180-degree" facial image such as that on the Shroud by wrapping linen around approximately 270 degrees (ear to ear) of a corpse's scull. As MarkAustin says in Post #25, "Won't work. Same objection. This will, again, produce a panoramic view of the head - a 180/360 deg. image"However, one can obtain the "180-degree" image seen on the Shroud by laying a piece of damp linen on top of a bas relief image of a face and then rubbing the linen into the contours of the bas relief.What media is then used to stain the linen is an option of the artist (relics dealer). This is a method of obtaining an imprint similar to gravestone rubbings and really is not a whole lot different than limestone lithography.Bas relief sculptures were commonly produced and available from early Babylonian and Persian cultures and were a popular art form right on up and through the Middle Ages. The use of organic and mineral stains for artists' pigments was highly developed by the Renaissance.[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-07-2004]

Thank you for showing that page so that it's obvious what a fraud that it is. They're not doing an enhancement; they're deliberately faking it. It's real up to image 3 on the left side, and up to image 2 on the right side. Then they selected out the area that they didn't want and raised the lightness value, leaving the hue and saturation unchanged. Notice how area of equivalent darkness is completely cut out of the image #3 on the left when creating #4, and the same between #2 and #3 on the right (except they're increasing instead of decreasing lightness on the right) .That's called "photoediting". You must ignore the results of any stage that is simply a selective edit. Consequently, all you have to go on is #3 on the left, and #2 on the right. And, even though those were custom-selected regions... do they look like coins? Not even remotely. They look like random noise patterns.

quote:

---

If the entire shroud was affected, I'd similarly imagine that radiocarbon dating could also possibly be affected, not only by the biofilm.

---

First off, stop and consider what you're saying: you're saying that a bare minimum of 60% of the shroud is composed of biofilm *that was developed very recently*. In fact, the biofilm *could not*, and I repeat, *could not* have been formed earlier than 1350, or the shroud's date would be made to look *older* than it dated to. Thus, this must all be a relatively recent biofilm. How and why?The "fire changing carbon dates" line indicates your lack of knowledge on the subject of carbon dating. What method do you propose to have the carbon 14/carbon 12 ratios altered (while still keeping an in-tact carbon 13 ratio)? Keep in mind that if your response is "soot", the fabric would have to be 80-90% (I'd have to run the math) soot, and 10-20% fiber, to give such an off carbon date. Do you view this as realistic?You need to deal with it - it's young.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I thought that lichen were a fungus and an alga in a true symbiotic relationship. As far as I'm aware bacteria don't tend to do this sort of thing. As to other things which have been radiocarbon dated and given results consistent with their known history, many natural fabrics have been assessed this way. I would assume that the behaviour of bacteria on the surface of these are behaving in a similar manner to those on the shroud.

After doing some more research regarding the alleged custom of putting coins on the eyelids of corpses, I came across this interesting conflicting report:"... Let's get back to the coin(s) dilemma. I would quote the greatest specialist in this field, Prof. L.Y. Rahamni (Chief Curator of the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums):
"No coins of the period 50 B.C. to 70 A.D. were found in any tomb. In the first century Jewish Palestine. The placing of the coins was looked upon as idolatry; there was only a Greco-Roman custom according to which a coin was placed in the mouth of the deceased, so that he could pay Charon for conveying his shades across the Styx. Prof. N. Avigad of the Hebrew University, who excavated a great many of tombs of the period in question, in and around Jerusalem, and Mr. A. Kloner, District Archeologist, who has lately had a great practical experience in this field, confirmed to me this scarcity of even one coin in such tombs. If at all encountered inside a tomb, such a stray coin has been found in the debris and not even in the tomb's loculi. It may be added that no coins have been reported from inside a Jewish ossuary nor does such a custom exist at the time at all. No archeological or literary evidence exists from the 1st century A.D. fro a custom of covering the eyes of the deceased with coins, then the existence of such a custom from the same period must be denied."Compare that quote to the following quote and remember both are attributed to the same professor L. Y. Rahmani. Note however that the second citation spells his name Rahamni(???). BTAIM:"... This is in rather curious contrast to an article "Jason's Tomb" in the ISRAEL EXPLORATION JOURNAL, Vol. 17, No. 2 (1967), pp 61-100 written by L. Y. Rahmani who excavated this tomb in Jerusalem in 1956. In this tomb, which had been used over many years, Rahmani details finding a number of bronze coins. Five of these were from the Hasmonean period, two were from the Herodian period, and forty-six were from the time of the Procurators. Thirty-six of the coins were at the foot of the body remains and six from its middle. Seven of the coins were the "Julia" lepta of Pontius Pilate, the coin we identified over the left eye from 29 AD, and twenty-one of the coins were the lituus lepta from 30 AD, the type found over the right eye. I had previously cited the article by Dr.R Hachlili about her excavations in tombs in Jericho, where she found four coins, two of them lepta from 41-44 AD inside a skull. In a later article Hachlili and Killebrew report on coins being found in two skulls from Jericho and a number of coins found in tombs in the Jerusalem area ..."Anyway, for those of you who can make heads or tails outta this coins in the Shroud issue, here's the link: Doubts Concerning the Coins Over the Eyes