Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Susheel]

Hans,
- What are those other ways?
- Do they seem as likely as the imprint of a real dead body?

So, have you proved that the imprint on the "shroud" is that of a 2 millennia old "real dead body"?

 

[zooterkin]

- What are those other ways?
- Do they seem as likely as the imprint of a real dead body?

Has anyone ever produced an imprint of a real dead body? People have certainly produced images on cloth in a number of ways.

Regardless, it makes no difference to the age of the cloth. What evidence do you have that the cloth is 2000 years old?

 

[Belz...]

Hans,
- What are those other ways?
- Do they seem as likely as the imprint of a real dead body?

For someone who supposedly has studied this topic for years, you sure don't seem to know anything about it.

 

[John Jones]

Hans,
- What are those other ways?
- Do they seem as likely as the imprint of a real dead body?

Why should anyone answer any more of your questions when you won't address the evidence of the CIQ being 2000 years old?

 

[Jabba]

Painting?/Imprint/Dead Body

Here's one. Joe Nickell was able to make a near-duplicate of the Shroud by stretching a cloth over a solid, bas relief of a face and daubing it with powdered dye from a blunt brush. the bas relief, being flatter, provided the distortion that a 3D sculpture doesn't, and the daubing, rather than painting, resulted in a fuzzy, faint image due to the places where the cloth didn't cling closely to the hills and valleys of the sculpture.

Sherman,
- Yeah -- but, it wasn't a very close duplicate. Given all the intricate characteristics of the image and stains, do you think that a bas relief would be a more likely explanation than an actual dead body?

 

[catsmate]

Here's one. Joe Nickell was able to make a near-duplicate of the Shroud by stretching a cloth over a solid, bas relief of a face and daubing it with powdered dye from a blunt brush. the bas relief, being flatter, provided the distortion that a 3D sculpture doesn't, and the daubing, rather than painting, resulted in a fuzzy, faint image due to the places where the cloth didn't cling closely to the hills and valleys of the sculpture.

For someone who supposedly has studied this topic for years, you sure don't seem to know anything about it.

That example was cited in the previous part of this thread. Jabba handwaved it there too.

 

[John Jones]

Sherman,
- Yeah -- but, it wasn't a very close duplicate. Given all the intricate characteristics of the image and stains, do you think that a bas relief would be a more likely explanation than an actual dead body?

Yes, because the image is a 2-D projection of a purported 3-D dead body. A bas relief would do this quite nicely, whereas a dead body would not. This has been explained to you repeatedly.


Now how about you provide some evidence that the shroud is old enough to be authentic?

 

[Loss Leader]

Sherman,
- Yeah -- but, it wasn't a very close duplicate. Given all the intricate characteristics of the image and stains, do you think that a bas relief would be a more likely explanation than an actual dead body?

Sigh.

Instead of trying to discredit the infinity minus one ways the shroud could not be authentic, why don't you present evidence for the one way it could be?

 

[Craig4]

Sherman,
- Yeah -- but, it wasn't a very close duplicate. Given all the intricate characteristics of the image and stains, do you think that a bas relief would be a more likely explanation than an actual dead body?

What about this oral tradition? Should we assume there isn't one?

 

[Craig4]

Hans,
- What are those other ways?
- Do they seem as likely as the imprint of a real dead body?

Who cares if it's not on a 2000 year old cloth?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Sherman,
- Yeah -- but, it wasn't a very close duplicate. Given all the intricate characteristics of the image and stains, do you think that a bas relief would be a more likely explanation than an actual dead body?

Neither a bas-relief rubbing not the image (by some mechanism you will not describe) of an "actual dead body" addresses, in any way, the age of the CIQ.

What evidence do you have to present that indicates that the CIQ is, in fact, 2000 years old?

 

[Craig4]

Resolved: Jabba has no evidence the the Shroud of Turin is 2000 years old. Having been asked numerous times by multiple people to provide such evidence, he has not done so. The only reasonable conclusion is that Jabba, in spite of claims to the contrary has no evidence that said shroud is 2000 years old. Absent such evidence, there is no reason to conclude that the shroud was used to wrap the dead corpse of anyone at or about 2000 years ago.

 

[Monza]

Sherman,
- Yeah -- but, it wasn't a very close duplicate. Given all the intricate characteristics of the image and stains, do you think that a bas relief would be a more likely explanation than an actual dead body?

It would be even more so! A wrapping of a real body would absolutely not produce an image similar to the shroud.

Yes, because the image is a 2-D projection of a purported 3-D dead body. A bas relief would do this quite nicely, whereas a dead body would not. This has been explained to you repeatedly.

Now how about you provide some evidence that the shroud is old enough to be authentic?

And this explains exactly why.

But enough about this. Let's see evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans,
- What are those other ways?
- Do they seem as likely as the imprint of a real dead body?

Imprints by anything shaped like a dead body, spraying (yes, they could to that at the time), smoke application, sponging, rubbing in dry pigment, imprints by a living body, imprints of a dead body.

... None of which gives any clue to the age, since they have been available for about 25,000 years and in principle still are.

Imprint of a body (live or dead) does not seem the most likely, however, since the image does not fit a real body (as has been pointed out repeatedly).

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Sherman,
- Yeah -- but, it wasn't a very close duplicate. Given all the intricate characteristics of the image and stains, do you think that a bas relief would be a more likely explanation than an actual dead body?

Far more likely. Cleaner and less smelly to work with than a corpse.

Hans

 

[Susheel]

So, have you proved that the imprint on the "shroud" is that of a 2 millennia old "real dead body"?

Zooterkin wrote

Has anyone ever produced an imprint of a real dead body? People have certainly produced images on cloth in a number of ways.

Regardless, it makes no difference to the age of the cloth. What evidence do you have that the cloth is 2000 years old?

Jabba, just a heads up in case you missed these questions.

 

[Rincewind]

Yeah - c'mon Jabba; stop teasing.

Give with the evidence...

 

[jimbob]

Has anyone ever produced an imprint of a real dead body? People have certainly produced images on cloth in a number of ways.

Regardless, it makes no difference to the age of the cloth. What evidence do you have that the cloth is 2000 years old?

Someone has made an imprint of a live body of a volunteer using materials available at the time and there is no reason why a similar technique couldn't work on a medieval body.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/05/us-italy-shroud-idUSTRE5943HL20091005

Garlaschelli reproduced the full-sized shroud using materials and techniques that were available in the middle ages.

They placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A mask was used for the face.

PIGMENT, BLOODSTAINS AND SCORCHES

The pigment was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it, a process which removed it from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud. He believes the pigment on the original Shroud faded naturally over the centuries.

They then added blood stains, burn holes, scorches and water stains to achieve the final effect.

There is a picture in that article showing a side by side comparison of the shroud produced by Garlaschelli with that produced by medieval forgers. It is pretty similar.

 

[jimbob]

Actually wiki had another view on that by Calvin.

In 1543 John Calvin, in his Treatise on Relics, wrote of the shroud, which was then at Nice (it was moved to Turin in 1578), "How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet?" In an interpretation of the Gospel of John[20:6–7] Calvin concluded that strips of linen were used to cover the body (excluding the head) and a separate cloth to cover the head.[45] He then stated that "either St. John is a liar," or else anyone who promotes such a shroud is "convicted of falsehood and deceit".[45]

 

[Rincewind]

Thanks for this Jimbob:


Actually wiki had another view on that by Calvin.


Quote:
In 1543 John Calvin, in his Treatise on Relics, wrote of the shroud, which was then at Nice (it was moved to Turin in 1578), "How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet?" In an interpretation of the Gospel of John[20:6–7] Calvin concluded that strips of linen were used to cover the body (excluding the head) and a separate cloth to cover the head.[45] He then stated that "either St. John is a liar," or else anyone who promotes such a shroud is "convicted of falsehood and deceit".[45]

Yet another nail gets hammered in...

[I thought it worth repeating the full post...]