The Sudarium of Oviedo

[Ivytalk]

My wife and I have his/hers sudariums (sudaria?). Really helps out after hitting the gym!

[Rob Iola]

Oviedo? Ovie ain't doin' shit this year, and he's dragging the Caps down with him. Of course, it isn't helping that Backstrom and Green are out injured...

[D1B]

I don't see how it matters if these are authentic. Most people, including academics, argue that Jesus was a real man. So this would only confirm it and the fact that he died (like every other human does). And?

One thing, though. There is no known explanation as to how the image of the body became transformed to the cloth. Not only is the image a "negative," but modern digital imaging confirms that the image was reproduced in a three-dimensional format.

So many believe that the image itself was created by a mysterious (miraculous?) energy unknown to us.

The Shroud!

[Skjellyfetti]

Do you believe all Catholic relics are authentic, JoltinJoe? Or do you believe just some are authentic?

[Skjellyfetti]

One thing, though. There is no known explanation as to how the image of the body became transformed to the cloth. Not only is the image a "negative," but modern digital imaging confirms that the image was reproduced in a three-dimensional format.

Painting it with pigment and baking it in an oven.

An Italian scientist says he has reproduced one of the world's most famous Catholic relics, the Shroud of Turin, to support his belief it is a medieval fake, not the cloth Jesus was buried in.

Luigi Garlaschelli created a copy of the shroud by wrapping a specially woven cloth over one of his students, painting it with pigment, baking it in an oven (which he called a "shroud machine") for several hours, then washing it.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-07/worl ... s=PM:WORLD" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JoltinJoe]

One thing, though. There is no known explanation as to how the image of the body became transformed to the cloth. Not only is the image a "negative," but modern digital imaging confirms that the image was reproduced in a three-dimensional format.

Painting it with pigment and baking it in an oven.

An Italian scientist says he has reproduced one of the world's most famous Catholic relics, the Shroud of Turin, to support his belief it is a medieval fake, not the cloth Jesus was buried in.

Luigi Garlaschelli created a copy of the shroud by wrapping a specially woven cloth over one of his students, painting it with pigment, baking it in an oven (which he called a "shroud machine") for several hours, then washing it.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-07/worl ... s=PM:WORLD" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

a mysterious (miraculous?) energy unknown to us.

What's the difference between statements like this and some burn out hippie new ager. "A mysterious (miraculous?) energy."

Better make sure your chakras are aligned.

I love it that you speak about all sorts of things which you have no knowledge about.

The story about the Italian scientist who painted pigment on the cloth and then baked it was long ago debunked by scientists.

The first picture taken of reflected that the film negative was a negative (i.e., your genius was not capable of painting a "negative image)" ...

Pathologists looked at the wounds painted by this genius and said they were not medically accurate ...

The Gallaschelli shroud was said to be the best fake made of the shroud to date, and yet science was able to devour it within days.

The shroud has been the most examined and studied artifact in history. Yet modern science has not only proven incapable of debunking it, advances in science only cause more wonderment about it.

Is it any wonder why no one will hire you? I mean, do you go into job interviews and say things that people listening know right off the top of their heads is nonsense?

http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/2009 ... elli-fake/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Skjellyfetti]

The story about the Italian scientist who painted pigment on the cloth and then baked it was long ago debunked.

Link to credible source? Shroud.org doesn't count.

The first picture taken of reflected that the film negative was a negative (i.e., your genius was not capable of painting a "negative image)" ...

Uh, it did produce a negative image...


He used materials and techniques that were available in the Middle Ages to explain how a negative image of a crucified man could be imprinted centuries before the invention of photography.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z1mO2x94SP" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pathologists looked at the wounds painted by this genius and said they were not medically accurate ...

Because he didn't actually wound the student that he wrapped in cloth to make the reproduction? He wasn't trying to accurately recreate a crucifixion but to accurately recreate the process to make the negative image... without a "mysterious, (mystical?) energy

[Skjellyfetti]

Do you believe all Catholic relics are authentic, JoltinJoe? Or do you believe just some are authentic?

Requoting this since you didn't answer last time.

[JoltinJoe]

Uh, it did produce a negative image...

Hey, dumb dumb, his "positive" image painted on the cloth had much more detail than his negative image. The shroud has far more detail on negative film than is visible on the cloth.

Thus, he did not paint a "negative."

Really, stop it, you embarrass yourself every time you speak.

[JoltinJoe]

Because he didn't actually wound the student that he wrapped in cloth to make the reproduction? He wasn't trying to accurately recreate a crucifixion but to accurately recreate the process to make the negative image... without a "mysterious, (mystical?) energy

Are you so dense that you do not understand the significance of what you, yourself, just said?

[Skjellyfetti]

his "positive" image painted on the cloth had much more detail than his negative image. The shroud has far more detail on negative film than is visible on the cloth.

legit source?

Thus, he did not paint a "negative."

It's still a negative image.

(and notice how you call it a negative image in the first quote.)

A negative image is simply a reversal of tones. Whether or not there is more detail on negative film or not is beside the point (and, I'll like to see a legit site that confirms what you allege).

[JoltinJoe]

his "positive" image painted on the cloth had much more detail than his negative image. The shroud has far more detail on negative film than is visible on the cloth.

legit source?

Thus, he did not paint a "negative."

It's still a negative image.

(and notice how you call it a negative image in the first quote.)

A negative image is simply a reversal of tones. Whether or not there is more detail on negative film or not is beside the point (and, I'll like to see a legit site that confirms what you allege).

Oh brother.

Every film negative demonstrates a reversal of tones. That's what "negative" means.

Putting that aside, see this report and compare the detail in Figure E between the Garlaschelli postive and the shroud positive.

Take a look at this report and specifically compare the detail in the Garlaschelli shroud and the Shroud of Turin. There is more detail in the Garlaschelli "positive" than in the shroud positive. On a film negative, however, there is less detail evident on the Garlaschelli negative.

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibault-lg.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[D1B]

Joltin Joe and the Shroud!

[JoltinJoe]

Before he died, Raymond Rogers, who was a director of the STRP project which had carbon dated the cloth in 1988, concluded that their test results were flawed. Thereafter, he was quoted in a documentary a saying that the cloth had a "very good chance" of being the historic Jesus' burial cloth.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/fe ... xpert.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ray was a director of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STRP) that concluded the 14ft-long linen cloth was fake.

But when new evidence revealed the study was flawed, the leading sceptic was forced to change his mind.

Ray, an expert chemist from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, said the 1988 tests were invalid because they were done on a repaired section of the shroud rather than the original linen.

Sadly, he died of cancer aged 78 in March 2005.

But shortly before his death he recorded a video detailing explosive conclusions which will be broadcast for the first time on Easter Sunday.

In the short film, gravely ill Ray says: "I don’t believe in miracles that defy the laws of nature. After the 1988 investigation I’d given up on the shroud. But now I am coming to the conclusion that it has a very good chance of being the piece of cloth that was used to bury the historic Jesus."

[Skjellyfetti]

Radiocarbon dating the shroud wouldn't prove anything one way or the other.

Even if they got a sample from an original piece of the cloth... all you're dating is the the material... not when the image was impressed upon it.

This kinda thing is rampant in the art world with forgers taking old pieces of vellum and repainting masterpieces on top of them and then selling them at auction as originals. Radiocarbon dating simply dates the material... not when it was painted.

The thing is, Joe. What evidence do you have that the Shroud of Turin is REAL? It's the same old arguments about religion. "People of faith" always want people to prove god doesn't exist. The onus should be on someone making a claim to prove it's true.

The honus should be on you and other believers to provide actual evidence that it is real... if you want people to take your claims seriously.

[Skjellyfetti]

Do you believe all Catholic relics are authentic, JoltinJoe? Or do you believe just some are authentic?

Requoting this since you didn't answer last time.

x2

[D1B]

Requoting this since you didn't answer last time.

x2

Joltin Joe = beaten up here regularly, unsure and desperate to prove his mythology.

[Ivytalk]

x2

Joltin Joe = beaten up here regularly, unsure and desperate to prove his mythology.

Hey, big talker, answer my question on the other thread or I'll track you like the hounds of hell. And your fat brother, too.

[travelinman67]

The honus should be on you and other believers to provide actual evidence that it is real... if you want people to take your claims seriously.

Joe might be too diplomatic to say it; I'm not.

Believers have no obligation to prove anything to non-believers. You either understand, or you don't.

Personally, I don't waste time debating non-believers. Equivalent is attempting to explain calculus to a pre-schooler.







Note to D, CC and Jelly: Pretty pathetic that you try to rat pack Joe and he STILL single-handedly collectively hands you your asses.

[JoltinJoe]

The honus should be on you and other believers to provide actual evidence that it is real... if you want people to take your claims seriously.

Sky, noted scientists have examined the shroud and believe it is real. I know one who has personally touched it, a pathologist, who has detailed in numerous written reports the accuracy of the wounds depicted on the shroud and affirmed that the victim died from a crucifixion. Moreover, he has written that it is impossible for any medieval artist to have depicted the wounds with such stunning accuracy that he could fool 21st century pathologists.

If you actually read up on the subject, you'd be surprised how extensive the proofs are, and how cumulatively they point to authenticity.

[JoltinJoe]

x2

Joltin Joe = beaten up here regularly, unsure and desperate to prove his mythology.

Beaten up by you and Sky?

[JoltinJoe]

Joltin Joe = beaten up here regularly, unsure and desperate to prove his mythology.

Hey, big talker, answer my question on the other thread or I'll track you like the hounds of hell. And your fat brother, too.

I actually know the truth of what tripped D's hateful anti-Catholicism, but I'm too polite to say what it was.

[JoltinJoe]

I still think the funniest "contribution" to this thread is Sky's observation that if you take a photograph of Gallaschelli's shroud, you get a negative on the film. I mean, how funny is that he thought that was significant?

Even better, he then placed a emoticon after saying this!

Not really a credit to an ASU education, is he? Good thing his favorite President wants to extend unemployment benefits.

[JoltinJoe]

Note to D, CC and Jelly: Pretty pathetic that you try to rat pack Joe and he STILL single-handedly collectively hands you your asses.

The three of them together must outweigh me by almost 700 pounds.

[D1B]

The honus should be on you and other believers to provide actual evidence that it is real... if you want people to take your claims seriously.

Sky, noted scientists have examined the shroud and believe it is real. I know one who has personally touched it, a pathologist, who has detailed in numerous written reports the accuracy of the wounds depicted on the shroud and affirmed that the victim died from a crucifixion. Moreover, he has written that it is impossible for any medieval artist to have depicted the wounds with such stunning accuracy that he could fool 21st century pathologists.

If you actually read up on the subject, you'd be surprised how extensive the proofs are, and how cumulatively they point to authenticity.

It's a known hoax. The catholic church doesn't even claim it's authentic. The bulk of independent and legitimate science and logic point to it being a hoax. The sheer fact that the church does not allow open and regular access to it is a major issue.

Last time it was open for viewing, millions of visitors flocked to Italy and spent a fortune as tourists. That's all this, and the hundreds of other hoaxes are - ruses to attract tourist dollars and feed an insatiable need of the religious to prove their god exists.

Like the Dutch museums that competed against each other to acquire van Meegeren “Vermeers,” many churches vied to become known for the number and importance of their relics. As early as 1071 the cathedral at Eichstatt possessed 683 relics, while by the 1520s the Schlosskirche at Wittenburg had 19,013 and the Schlosskirche at Halle boasted more than 21,000 such objects. Jesus’ foreskin was preserved in at least six churches. There were countless crucifixion nails, crowns of thorns, and lances. And there were burial shrouds.

http://denisdutton.com/requiem.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The collecting of relics related to religion really began around the time of the Crusades. Many churches prominently displayed relics and the faithful came to view and pray before them. A famous religious artifact could drastically improve the contributions that a church received. The most powerful relics were pieces of the True Cross, the actual cross Jesus was crucified upon.

Charles Mackay, in his seminal 1841 work Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, states, "Fragments, purporting to have been cut from it, were, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, to be found in almost every church in Europe, and would, if collected together in one place, have been almost sufficient to have built a cathedral".

Probably the most famous relic of recent times is the Shroud of Turin, named for its current home in northern Italy. This large piece of linen is believed by some to be the burial cloth which was wrapped around Jesus after his crucifixion. Upon the shroud is a faint reverse or negative image of a supine man. The man has apparently been crucified and bright red stains are seen in the areas of his wounds.

The shroud gained much interest after the advent of photography allowed the positive image to be seen for the first time in 1898. The image is not a standard painting, it is more like a imprint made by wrapping the cloth around a person covered with paint.

There are several problems with the supposition that this relic is the actual burial shroud of the historical Jesus. For instance:

Most important is the fact the multiple independent carbon dating laboratories have all come up with the same date range for the artifact: 1260-1390
Playing directly into this problem is a document from the mid-14th century in which a bishop recounts the confession of the artist who created the shroud. Pope Clement VII declared the shroud to be a fake in 1389.
The "bloodstains" have been tested and found to be red ocher and vermilion tempura paint.
A large single piece of linen is inconsistent with the biblical account of the burial preparations for Jesus.

Despite these problems, believers continue to believe. For science, the question is pretty much settled.

http://www.cincinnatiskeptics.org/blurb ... turin.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;