The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-06-2013, 03:28 AM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2013 03:54 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
(06-06-2013 02:09 AM)f0rTyLeGz Wrote:  
(06-06-2013 12:41 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Actually the assertion is incorrect. The Florentines and Italians were fascinated with image, perspective, and negative image. It was one of the favorite subjects of the famous Italian Renaissance artist Brunelleschi, among others. I think the Florence Baptistry painting is believed to be a negative painted image.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Brunelleschi
Galileo also used the idea in the invention of his telescope, and there are drawings of negative images in Da Vinci's notebooks. It was a favorite subject of the period.
As such, the shroud would be perfectly situated as an artifact, from that period. It was not unique, and it fits in perfectly, into the Italian Renaissance, and their interests.

Well your assertion is not true. I have wandered through all of the great museums in Italy and Europe. I lived in DC and know the National Gallery very well... I know who Brunelleschi is, and of course Leonardo, and his marvelous drawings... but no where in your Wiki article, or anywhere for that matter, can I find a negative image in art history. No doubt some coins with heads on them were copied with pencil or charcoal rubbings, but I would be delighted to see any art works that are negative images.

http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/History...opies.html

Camera obscura
"...Here the figures, here the colors, here all the images of every part of the universe are contracted to a point. O what a point is so marvelous!"
- Leonardo da Vinci

In 1490, da Vinci wrote the first detailed description of camera obscura in his “Atlantic Codex,” a 1,286 page collection of drawings and writings. The principle of camera obscura is simple, punch a hole in a dark box and put a piece of light-sensitive material on the other side and, voilà, you have a photograph."

Too bad you never took an Art History class, or actually read the Wiki article :

"Brunelleschi is famous for two panel paintings illustrating geometric optical linear perspective made in the early 1400s. His biographer, Antonio Manetti, described this famous experiment in which Brunelleschi painted two panels: the first of the Florentine Baptistery as viewed frontally from the western portal of the unfinished cathedral, and second the Palazzo Vecchio as seen obliquely from its northwest corner. These were not, however, the first paintings with accurate linear perspective, which may be attributed to Ambrogio Lorenzetti (Annunciation, 1344).

The first Baptistery panel was constructed with a hole drilled through the centric vanishing point. Curiously, Brunelleschi intended that it only be observed by the viewer facing the Baptistery, looking through the hole in the panel, from the unpainted backside. As a mirror was moved into and out of view, the observer saw the striking similarity between the actual view of the Baptistery, and the reflected view of the painted Baptistery image. Brunelleschi wanted his new perspective "realism" to be tested not by comparing the painted image to the actual Baptistery but to its reflection in a mirror according to the Euclidean laws of geometric optics. This feat showed artists vividly how they might paint their images, not merely as flat two-dimensional shapes, but looking more like three-dimensional structures just as mirrors reflect them. Unfortunately, both panels have since been lost.[13]

Around this time linear perspective, as a novel artistic tool, spread not only in Italy but throughout Western Europe. It quickly became, and remains, standard studio practice."

Nothing is woo woo. Nothing pops out of a culture as "unique". Your assertions concerning the shroud are false.
The creator of the shroud, whoever and however they did it, existed in a culture that was interested in the thing they produced. Did the Native Americans produce the shroud. No.
The National Gallery is irrelevant. I have seen the Brunelleschi painting, and have been to Florence also. "Wandering around" is not study.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura

http://www.leonardo-da-vinci-biography.c...hroud.html

Your claim about camera invention is also false.

"The concept of still photography dates back to the tenth century when Islamic scientists developed the camera obscura (Latin for "dark chamber"), a darkened enclosure with a small aperture (opening) to admit light. The light rays would cast an inverted image of external objects onto a flat surface opposite the aperture. This image could be studied and traced by someone working inside the camera obscura, or the image could be viewed from the outside of the camera, through a peephole.

In the sixteenth century, the Italian scientist Giambattista della Porta (c. 1535-1615) published his studies on fitting the aperture of the camera obscura with a lens to strengthen or enlarge the image projected. Made increasingly versatile through additional improvements, the camera obscura become popular among seventeenth- and eighteenth-century European artists.

But the camera obscura could only project (rather than reproduce) images onto a screen or a piece of paper. During the 1800s scientists experimented with ways of making the images permanent. Among those who made advances in the photographic process were French physicist Joseph-Nicéphore Niepce (1765-1833), who produced the first negative image in 1826; French painter Louis-Jacques Daguerre (1759-1851), who in 1839 succeeded in making a direct positive image on a silver plate, known as the daguerreotype; English scientist William Henry Fox Talbot (1800-1877), who developed a paper negative (c. 1841) that could be used to print any number of paper positives; and English astronomer Sir John Herschel (1792-1891), who was the first to produce a practical photographic fixing agent and the first to apply the terms "positive" and "negative" to photographic images. All of these milestones made photography a practical way of permanently recording real-life images.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/when-was-ph...z2VQZsfnr5
http://www.answers.com/topic/when-was-ph...y-invented

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 11:48 AM
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
BB, okay, you knocked off one point. Here are the rest...

They didn't know in the 14th century that 1st century Jews used a long shroud and wrapped it over the person's head then back down to the feet, producing the exact double image that is on the shroud, front and back obverse around the head.

They didn't know in the 14th century that Jesus was pierced through His wrists through the space of Destot (most artworks from the period and all the way back show nails through the hands)

They didn't know in the 14th century what the Roman flagrum was shaped like. Shroud lecturers today will hold up unearthed flagrum to images of the shroud on screen, showing the marks in Jesus's body on it.

They didn't have easy access to Jerusalem thorn in the 14th century, and its pollen is on the shroud.

They didn't have computer projection in the 14th century, and couldn't project that since the light painted the shroud moving in STRAIGHT angels upward from the body, that extending the image on the shroud via projection produces a perfect human body in three dimensional proportion.

Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 12:04 PM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2013 04:21 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
(06-06-2013 11:48 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  They didn't know in the 14th century that Jesus was pierced through His wrists through the space of Destot (most artworks from the period and all the way back show nails through the hands)

They didn't know in the 14th century what the Roman flagrum was shaped like. Shroud lecturers today will hold up unearthed flagrum to images of the shroud on screen, showing the marks in Jesus's body on it.

They didn't have easy access to Jerusalem thorn in the 14th century, and its pollen is on the shroud.

They didn't have computer projection in the 14th century, and couldn't project that since the light painted the shroud moving in STRAIGHT angels upward from the body, that extending the image on the shroud via projection produces a perfect human body in three dimensional proportion.

Thanks.

Da Vinci DID know about the real method of crucifixion. It's in his note books on cadavers. You failed to read any of the links. I really could care less about all the rest. YOU have no proof that it's the shroud of Jebus. It could be anything. Jebus was not buried in a shroud. He was tossed into a common grave, and did not rise. BEFORE you even start with your shroud crap, YOU must prove all the surrounding facts FIRST. Fail again. If the Christian god can't do any better than to leave an half-ass burned unconvincing "proof" she's in big trouble.
You really have a weak faith, ya know it. You NEED this bullsjit, and "prophesy" and all your little lined up crutches.
Have you no real relationship with your Jebus ?
Just like all your messiah nonsense doesn't apply to Jebus, as he didn't get the job done, neither would this , even If it were to be found to be from the 1st C. Before you link this to a Jebus, you have to prove he rose, or was even buried, in this manner. You can't and won't, so the whole thing is irrelevant.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 12:34 PM
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
(06-06-2013 03:28 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(06-06-2013 02:09 AM)f0rTyLeGz Wrote:  Well your assertion is not true. I have wandered through all of the great museums in Italy and Europe. I lived in DC and know the National Gallery very well... I know who Brunelleschi is, and of course Leonardo, and his marvelous drawings... but no where in your Wiki article, or anywhere for that matter, can I find a negative image in art history. No doubt some coins with heads on them were copied with pencil or charcoal rubbings, but I would be delighted to see any art works that are negative images.

http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/History...opies.html

Camera obscura
"...Here the figures, here the colors, here all the images of every part of the universe are contracted to a point. O what a point is so marvelous!"
- Leonardo da Vinci

In 1490, da Vinci wrote the first detailed description of camera obscura in his “Atlantic Codex,” a 1,286 page collection of drawings and writings. The principle of camera obscura is simple, punch a hole in a dark box and put a piece of light-sensitive material on the other side and, voilà, you have a photograph."

Too bad you never took an Art History class, or actually read the Wiki article :

"Brunelleschi is famous for two panel paintings illustrating geometric optical linear perspective made in the early 1400s. His biographer, Antonio Manetti, described this famous experiment in which Brunelleschi painted two panels: the first of the Florentine Baptistery as viewed frontally from the western portal of the unfinished cathedral, and second the Palazzo Vecchio as seen obliquely from its northwest corner. These were not, however, the first paintings with accurate linear perspective, which may be attributed to Ambrogio Lorenzetti (Annunciation, 1344).

The first Baptistery panel was constructed with a hole drilled through the centric vanishing point. Curiously, Brunelleschi intended that it only be observed by the viewer facing the Baptistery, looking through the hole in the panel, from the unpainted backside. As a mirror was moved into and out of view, the observer saw the striking similarity between the actual view of the Baptistery, and the reflected view of the painted Baptistery image. Brunelleschi wanted his new perspective "realism" to be tested not by comparing the painted image to the actual Baptistery but to its reflection in a mirror according to the Euclidean laws of geometric optics. This feat showed artists vividly how they might paint their images, not merely as flat two-dimensional shapes, but looking more like three-dimensional structures just as mirrors reflect them. Unfortunately, both panels have since been lost.[13]

Around this time linear perspective, as a novel artistic tool, spread not only in Italy but throughout Western Europe. It quickly became, and remains, standard studio practice."

Nothing is woo woo. Nothing pops out of a culture as "unique". Your assertions concerning the shroud are false.
The creator of the shroud, whoever and however they did it, existed in a culture that was interested in the thing they produced. Did the Native Americans produce the shroud. No.
The National Gallery is irrelevant. I have seen the Brunelleschi painting, and have been to Florence also. "Wandering around" is not study.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura

http://www.leonardo-da-vinci-biography.c...hroud.html

Your claim about camera invention is also false.

"The concept of still photography dates back to the tenth century when Islamic scientists developed the camera obscura (Latin for "dark chamber"), a darkened enclosure with a small aperture (opening) to admit light. The light rays would cast an inverted image of external objects onto a flat surface opposite the aperture. This image could be studied and traced by someone working inside the camera obscura, or the image could be viewed from the outside of the camera, through a peephole.

In the sixteenth century, the Italian scientist Giambattista della Porta (c. 1535-1615) published his studies on fitting the aperture of the camera obscura with a lens to strengthen or enlarge the image projected. Made increasingly versatile through additional improvements, the camera obscura become popular among seventeenth- and eighteenth-century European artists.

But the camera obscura could only project (rather than reproduce) images onto a screen or a piece of paper. During the 1800s scientists experimented with ways of making the images permanent. Among those who made advances in the photographic process were French physicist Joseph-Nicéphore Niepce (1765-1833), who produced the first negative image in 1826; French painter Louis-Jacques Daguerre (1759-1851), who in 1839 succeeded in making a direct positive image on a silver plate, known as the daguerreotype; English scientist William Henry Fox Talbot (1800-1877), who developed a paper negative (c. 1841) that could be used to print any number of paper positives; and English astronomer Sir John Herschel (1792-1891), who was the first to produce a practical photographic fixing agent and the first to apply the terms "positive" and "negative" to photographic images. All of these milestones made photography a practical way of permanently recording real-life images.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/when-was-ph...z2VQZsfnr5
http://www.answers.com/topic/when-was-ph...y-invented

You are wrong... again. What does linier perspective have to do with the Shroud of Turin? And the camera obscura does not present a negative image like the image on the shroud. What you get with a camera obscura is a flat image in full color. That image is not comparable to The Shroud of Turin. There is nothing like it until photography comes along 500 years later.

Everything is falling.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 01:31 PM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2013 02:22 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
(06-06-2013 12:34 PM)f0rTyLeGz Wrote:  
(06-06-2013 03:28 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Camera obscura
"...Here the figures, here the colors, here all the images of every part of the universe are contracted to a point. O what a point is so marvelous!"
- Leonardo da Vinci

In 1490, da Vinci wrote the first detailed description of camera obscura in his “Atlantic Codex,” a 1,286 page collection of drawings and writings. The principle of camera obscura is simple, punch a hole in a dark box and put a piece of light-sensitive material on the other side and, voilà, you have a photograph."

Too bad you never took an Art History class, or actually read the Wiki article :

"Brunelleschi is famous for two panel paintings illustrating geometric optical linear perspective made in the early 1400s. His biographer, Antonio Manetti, described this famous experiment in which Brunelleschi painted two panels: the first of the Florentine Baptistery as viewed frontally from the western portal of the unfinished cathedral, and second the Palazzo Vecchio as seen obliquely from its northwest corner. These were not, however, the first paintings with accurate linear perspective, which may be attributed to Ambrogio Lorenzetti (Annunciation, 1344).

The first Baptistery panel was constructed with a hole drilled through the centric vanishing point. Curiously, Brunelleschi intended that it only be observed by the viewer facing the Baptistery, looking through the hole in the panel, from the unpainted backside. As a mirror was moved into and out of view, the observer saw the striking similarity between the actual view of the Baptistery, and the reflected view of the painted Baptistery image. Brunelleschi wanted his new perspective "realism" to be tested not by comparing the painted image to the actual Baptistery but to its reflection in a mirror according to the Euclidean laws of geometric optics. This feat showed artists vividly how they might paint their images, not merely as flat two-dimensional shapes, but looking more like three-dimensional structures just as mirrors reflect them. Unfortunately, both panels have since been lost.[13]

Around this time linear perspective, as a novel artistic tool, spread not only in Italy but throughout Western Europe. It quickly became, and remains, standard studio practice."

Nothing is woo woo. Nothing pops out of a culture as "unique". Your assertions concerning the shroud are false.
The creator of the shroud, whoever and however they did it, existed in a culture that was interested in the thing they produced. Did the Native Americans produce the shroud. No.
The National Gallery is irrelevant. I have seen the Brunelleschi painting, and have been to Florence also. "Wandering around" is not study.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura

http://www.leonardo-da-vinci-biography.c...hroud.html

Your claim about camera invention is also false.

"The concept of still photography dates back to the tenth century when Islamic scientists developed the camera obscura (Latin for "dark chamber"), a darkened enclosure with a small aperture (opening) to admit light. The light rays would cast an inverted image of external objects onto a flat surface opposite the aperture. This image could be studied and traced by someone working inside the camera obscura, or the image could be viewed from the outside of the camera, through a peephole.

In the sixteenth century, the Italian scientist Giambattista della Porta (c. 1535-1615) published his studies on fitting the aperture of the camera obscura with a lens to strengthen or enlarge the image projected. Made increasingly versatile through additional improvements, the camera obscura become popular among seventeenth- and eighteenth-century European artists.

But the camera obscura could only project (rather than reproduce) images onto a screen or a piece of paper. During the 1800s scientists experimented with ways of making the images permanent. Among those who made advances in the photographic process were French physicist Joseph-Nicéphore Niepce (1765-1833), who produced the first negative image in 1826; French painter Louis-Jacques Daguerre (1759-1851), who in 1839 succeeded in making a direct positive image on a silver plate, known as the daguerreotype; English scientist William Henry Fox Talbot (1800-1877), who developed a paper negative (c. 1841) that could be used to print any number of paper positives; and English astronomer Sir John Herschel (1792-1891), who was the first to produce a practical photographic fixing agent and the first to apply the terms "positive" and "negative" to photographic images. All of these milestones made photography a practical way of permanently recording real-life images.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/when-was-ph...z2VQZsfnr5
http://www.answers.com/topic/when-was-ph...y-invented

You are wrong... again. What does linier perspective have to do with the Shroud of Turin? And the camera obscura does not present a negative image like the image on the shroud. What you get with a camera obscura is a flat image in full color. That image is not comparable to The Shroud of Turin. There is nothing like it until photography comes along 500 years later.

Wrong.
The most you can say is that you don't know how it was done, and that YOU are aware of nothing to compare it to. You have indicated nothing else, except your opinion.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 02:14 PM
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
Even if this "relic" was indeed from the appropriate period, how in the hell do you get to it being the one from the original zombie himself? There is absolutely no chain of custody for more than 1000 years and why couldn't it be from the guy who was crucified the next day? As BB just said, its a desperate attempt at a crutch.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 05:05 PM
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
(06-06-2013 02:14 PM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  Even if this "relic" was indeed from the appropriate period, how in the hell do you get to it being the one from the original zombie himself? There is absolutely no chain of custody for more than 1000 years and why couldn't it be from the guy who was crucified the next day? As BB just said, its a desperate attempt at a crutch.

Jewsus was not a zombie.

He did not hunger for the flesh and brains of the living.

He hungered for their souls.


Jewsus was a Lich, if anything.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2013, 01:07 AM
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
(06-06-2013 01:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(06-06-2013 12:34 PM)f0rTyLeGz Wrote:  You are wrong... again. What does linier perspective have to do with the Shroud of Turin? And the camera obscura does not present a negative image like the image on the shroud. What you get with a camera obscura is a flat image in full color. That image is not comparable to The Shroud of Turin. There is nothing like it until photography comes along 500 years later.

Wrong.
The most you can say is that you don't know how it was done, and that YOU are aware of nothing to compare it to. You have indicated nothing else, except your opinion.
It is you who go on about Brunelleschi, linear perspective, Leonardo, and camera obscuras... none of which have anything to do with the shroud. All I have ever said is that The Shroud of Turin is a MYSTERY. And that there are NO negative images in the history of art except for the shroud and lame copies of it until photography with negatives in the 19th century. No one knows how it was made... and it is not for lack of trying.

Everything is falling.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2013, 06:35 AM
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
(07-06-2013 01:07 AM)f0rTyLeGz Wrote:  
(06-06-2013 01:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Wrong.
The most you can say is that you don't know how it was done, and that YOU are aware of nothing to compare it to. You have indicated nothing else, except your opinion.
It is you who go on about Brunelleschi, linear perspective, Leonardo, and camera obscuras... none of which have anything to do with the shroud. All I have ever said is that The Shroud of Turin is a MYSTERY. And that there are NO negative images in the history of art except for the shroud and lame copies of it until photography with negatives in the 19th century. No one knows how it was made... and it is not for lack of trying.

Not a mystery. Art. Fourteenth century. As an artist, "lost technique" ain't a mystery to me.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
07-06-2013, 09:02 AM
RE: The shroud of Turin isn't a forgery!
(07-06-2013 06:35 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(07-06-2013 01:07 AM)f0rTyLeGz Wrote:  It is you who go on about Brunelleschi, linear perspective, Leonardo, and camera obscuras... none of which have anything to do with the shroud. All I have ever said is that The Shroud of Turin is a MYSTERY. And that there are NO negative images in the history of art except for the shroud and lame copies of it until photography with negatives in the 19th century. No one knows how it was made... and it is not for lack of trying.

Not a mystery. Art. Fourteenth century. As an artist, "lost technique" ain't a mystery to me.

Shakespeare Insult 13 – Henry IV Part 1
“That trunk of humours, that bolting-hutch of beastliness, that swollen parcel of dropsies, that huge bombard of sack, that stuffed cloak-bag of guts, that reverend vice, that grey Iniquity, that father ruffian, that vanity in years?”
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: