The Black Vault

bionic wrote:I personally, do NOT care about the what's, and the why's, and the who'se, and the when's, and such..
I just LIKE that science can't figure out how it was done.
That pleases me in some deep, esoteric way.

Well as long as bionic is pleased, that's all that matters...





Let's just pretend for a moment that the shroud is the real deal. Ok, the bible suggests that the cloths were found in undisturbed condition... as though the body they were around simply disappeared (as opposed to Jesus getting up and physically shedding the garments.

Now, the way I alwasy imagined it is, Jesus' body turned to white light and ascended. That idea is completely consistent with the condition of this shroud because had Jesus turned to a brilliant light, it would probably leave something akin to radition burns behind as it as the light ascended through the cloth.

Just sayin'.

What you have in the shroud is a photographic negative. Also a copy and paste job as the head was added later. You can see it in some of the close ups. it is not aligned properly.

When you wrap a body in a shroud and then unwrap it the image does not come out symetrical.

Ever make a copy or template of something? When you fold it out flat to cut it from a flat sheet of material it often does not even look like what it is. It does not come out as the shape of the original item..like a photographic or photographic negative. It becomes more of a spread out type view as it is unwrapped.

Unwrapping a body would do the same thing..it would become a wider more spread out image. Not the photographic negative you see in this shroud.

I think this technique was done using a camera obscura. A type of early photography known only to a few peoples that far back in history.

It is a photographic negative. Anyone who has developed photos from a negative in a darkroom can see that.


https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ra_obscura


Thanks,
Orangetom

orangetom1999 wrote:What you have in the shroud is a photographic negative. Also a copy and paste job as the head was added later. You can see it in some of the close ups. it is not aligned properly.

When you wrap a body in a shroud and then unwrap it the image does not come out symetrical.

Ever make a copy or template of something? When you fold it out flat to cut it from a flat sheet of material it often does not even look like what it is. It does not come out as the shape of the original item..like a photographic or photographic negative. It becomes more of a spread out type view as it is unwrapped.

Unwrapping a body would do the same thing..it would become a wider more spread out image. Not the photographic negative you see in this shroud.

I think this technique was done using a camera obscura. A type of early photography known only to a few peoples that far back in history.

It is a photographic negative. Anyone who has developed photos from a negative in a darkroom can see that.


https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ra_obscura


Thanks,
Orangetom

Brother, take heed. If what you say is true and that obvious, there would be no scientific debate. I can't believe that any of the scientists on either side of this debate simply hadn't considered your argument.

Put it this way. If you are correct, then the scientists on both sides are some world-class buffoons. That could be true, but I'm putting very low odds on it.

I must be going crazy because I think orangetom is spot-on!

First time I've ever said that.

Might these Italian scientists be Catholic and biased? Possibly, but either way, what orangetom says DOES make sense. If anyone has ever done 3d modelling, they'll know that the skins you make are wide and distorted versions, a face created in this manner would not look just like a normal face.

And scientists are just human, and humans are often buffoons so in my opinion it's better to look at the conclusions of the majority as being more likely to be true, especially in cases like this.

We should also bear in mind that it was never shown to be supernatural, even if you trust the results of the study cited in the OP, it was simply shown that it could not have been made using the method it was assumed to have been made.

humphreys wrote:I must be going crazy because I think orangetom is spot-on!

First time I've ever said that.

Might these Italian scientists be Catholic and biased? Possibly, but either way, what orangetom says DOES make sense. If anyone has ever done 3d modelling, they'll know that the skins you make are wide and distorted versions, a face created in this manner would not look just like a normal face.

And scientists are just human, and humans are often buffoons so in my opinion it's better to look at the conclusions of the majority as being more likely to be true, especially in cases like this.

We should also bear in mind that it was never shown to be supernatural, even if you trust the results of the study cited in the OP, it was simply shown that it could not have been made using the method it was assumed to have been made.

yes, but it would be the scientists on both sides that missed something so completely obvious... not just the possible "Catholic and biased" ones.

True, but it's not the first time I've heard the objection orangetom raised.

It might not be that they missed it, so much as they thought it to be unimportant? Maybe their reasoning was that when you're dealing with the supernatural, things won't necessarily happen as we'd expect them to?

Just thinking about it I think that in normal circumstances, what orangetom says is surely true, but, technically, as we're POTENTIALLY dealing with the supernatural...well, normal rules might not apply.

It doesn't take a genius to see that a ton of stuff in the Bible is simply impossible, scientifically speaking, and even if we assume a lot of the stuff is supernatural, it still doesn't make sense to us unless we put aside ALL natural assumptions and treat it as an "anything can happen, the rules don't apply" scenario. Believers are happy to do that, skeptics aren't, that's why the shroud debate is never going to come into agreement from both sides.

humphreys wrote:Just thinking about it I think that in normal circumstances, what orangetom says is surely true, but, technically, as we're POTENTIALLY dealing with the supernatural...well, normal rules don't apply.

Aye. Sorta like the something/nothing deal.

I did have a good Christmas. And you? How's the ball 'n' chain and rugrat.

frrostedman wrote:

humphreys wrote:Just thinking about it I think that in normal circumstances, what orangetom says is surely true, but, technically, as we're POTENTIALLY dealing with the supernatural...well, normal rules don't apply.

Aye. Sorta like the something/nothing deal.

I did have a good Christmas. And you? How's the ball 'n' chain and rugrat.

Shannon is good, she is pregnant right now so in the rare occasions she doesn't feel sick she's great. Little Jack had a great Christmas too, lots of presents and getting spoilt.

Lord Help me Jesus...I'm on dangerous ground here!!!!!!!

LOL LOL LOL!!!


Humphrey's posted,

I must be going crazy because I think orangetom is spot-on!

First time I've ever said that.

On the serious side..I am not against science...daily practical science.

Carbon 14 is fine for items less than some 5000/4500 years olde. I just don't buy into that millions and millions of years stuff.

I do think they are at least in the ball park with the dates given for the carbon 14 readings on this shroud.

What is of note in most articles is the absence of details of those objecting to the carbon 14 dating data and methods...they just say the sample was not pure or untampered or tainted might be more accurate...no details. This rings more of politics than science.

I'm going to make a statement here and you among the readers don't have to buy into this if you choose not to. My point here is that if there is any organization acutely and skillfully into politics of all kinds..it is the RCC.

I also know one other thing...academically ...catholic schools are first rate. In all arenas...language, grammar, math, sciences, et al. When one completes an education from a Catholic school ..academically they are way ahead in the disciplines than can be said for most public schools.
My point here is that you cannot claim ignorance from most catholics..they are very well educated...academically...and particularly catholic leadership.
You cannot claim ignorance from most catholic trained academics...or politicians. You can however...claim politics....which to me at times is more akin to academic nonsense.
I think you readers get my inference here.


ON the other hand...science can also become political. In this case it is just as dubious to me as is the RCC. No difference to me. I only trust science but so far. Science will make for a very poor faith/religion.

If this were so..science would not be afraid of the competition from religion and seek to operate in such an cloistered environment.

I know that organized science ..just like organized religion will go to great lengths to hide, confuse, and conceal it's anomalies.

In such a case or observation I give both science and organized religion a thumbs down.

And I think this is one of the thumbs down with this shroud.

I am not saying that this was not skillfully done for those days. It most certainly was. I also think that in those days only a handful of trained knowledgeable peoples had the skills to do such an thing.

I just don't think it is what it is claimed to be.

Also the image on the shroud does not match what very very few writings give a description of what Jesus the Christ for Remission of Sins...appeared.
For he was hard to look upon. Not what is in the image here in the shroud.
This was my first clue..so many many years ago about the shroud.


Thanks,
Orangetom

OrangeTom that was a very brilliant explanation of the template, which anyone who ever took industrial drafting can relate to, the unwrapping and drafting projection to a flat unfolded view. That said, Humphreys agreed becasue Humphreys has a science or physical explanation mindset, which he also could relate to that explanation. And it makes perfect sense. Still does not explain how it was done in the year 1400-1500 however. But its great food for thought concerning the shroud. As much as we badmouth the Atheist side of scientific logic, we are not immune to using it ourselves, like you just did.

Secondly, your comment about not trusting according to who pays the bills. Well you have to consider that your carbon 14 information may be subject to the same scrutiny, that someone paying those bills wanted those results. I have not idea is the italian scientist mentions are related in any way to the Vatican scientific research, or if they are completly independant.

Third, the mention that the Catholic Church or Vatican Archieves may be biased could be true, but most people do not know that the Vatican houses some, if not most, of the most historical relics from writings to art, dating to before Christ. The Vatican, is also one of the worlds most formost authorities, and produces some of the most in depth findings, from research of many subjects, not just religion. The combined educational level of all the Catholic Cardinals of the world alone is astounding. The walls of the Vatican and the people inside, the libraries, archieves, museums, the researching, is akin to the greatest Universities of the world. The Vatican is not just where the Pope lives, the Vatican has and does astounding things in research, history, religous presevations and artifacts.

As far as the shroud is concerned, it is not completly explained from the sound of it, nor have they figured out how it was done if it were faked.