S. J. Miller writes:
Whether the shroud is the work of a human hand (forgery, hoax, as pseudo-sceptics would say), or whether it was accidental/incidental involving a corpse under unobserved circumstances is beside the point. Also, the carbon dating problem pales into significance as far as believers or pseudo-sceptics are concerned, because the real matter at hand is the image itself.
Look at the number of ‘sceptic’ websites and papers trying to explain away the phenomenon (e.g. http://skepdic.com/shroud.html, http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/, etc.). Aside from their disagreements over carbond dating analysis, pollen analysis and the apparent discoveries of paint pigments, they still fail miserably in one vital area that they arrogantly claim to have the monopoly over: objective reality.
The objective reality of the shroud is the image contained therein or thereupon. The idea that the image created on the shroud is the work of a painter seems, quite frankly, ridiculous, and as it stands, it is also impossible. As the shroud dates from at least the early renaissance period, perhaps earlier (and if the pseudo-skeptics want to have it both ways, earlier still), you are faced with the fact that the greatest painters of that period: Giotto, Fra Angelico, Uccello, Pisanello were not of a sufficient technical skill to present anything near photo-realistic depictions on panel. Even if you attribute the shrouds earliest historical mention to a later period you would still have to concede that artists such as Leonardo, Raphael and Giorgione (and that really is pushing the limits historically) still didn’t have sufficient technical capabilities to create thoroughly realistic work. But most importantly, the shroud, if a work of hand, would not just be a remarkable piece of photo realistic work, the actual application of the paint is the most telling factor. For the image to have been painted on the shroud would have taken a painter an effort so great that he would have to be able to apply correct weights of paint or pigment, from a loaded brush or other hand-held device, with a technique employing pointilism, so accurate as to be executed under conditions that would require a microscope, without error, and with such perfection as to enable a 3D image to appear using a VP-8 Image Analyzer, and of course, imagining the entire image while executing the painting, back, front and inside out to all match perfectly while taking into account perspective distortion and blood flow into relevant parts, and one last thing – the whole image would be done in negative! All of this would have to have been done by a painter WITHOUT A SINGLE MISTAKE. The microscope has shown that quite clearly.
What pseudo-sceptics don’t seem to understand is that they can’t simply sweep something under the carpet like this and hope that it goes away. No matter what the argument is regarding the age of the cloth, or even of whether it corresponds to Christ, nobody has been able to explain how the image could have been made. No painter from hundreds of years ago had the time, resources or skill to paint that image. No painter now has the time, resources or skill to paint that image. If they do, they simply have to replicate it and prove to us that it’s a forgery, but they can’t. No painter can. Some crude attempts to recreate it have been attempted, but they are certainly not as accurate, and are light years away from similar when viewed under a microscope. And so the pseudo-sceptics in their desperate attempt to debunk it remain unable to explain how a supra-genius master painter/forger had the time, skill and resources available in the 14th century to create this wonder, while nothing else exists in the world of anything near the same level of technical accomplishment. I find it both disappointing and depressing that human beings can be so dishonest and ignorant of this obvious fact.
It’s the duty of science to understand how the image came to be on the cloth. If we ever understand how it did happen by a means other than painting, we still have no means of proving that this is the shroud of Christ.
More here: More Tetherd Cow Ahead on the Shroud of Turin « Shroud of Turin Blog and at the blog entry that got this thread started here at Tetherd Cow Ahead
“All of this would have to have been done by a painter WITHOUT A SINGLE MISTAKE.”
Does that include the fact that one arm and hand are significantly longer than the other?
SJ Miller:
Your reasoning is foggy and unfocussed. What do you mean by:
>>Whether the shroud is the work of a human hand (forgery, hoax, as pseudo-sceptics would say), or whether it was accidental/incidental involving a corpse under unobserved circumstances is beside the point. Also, the carbon dating problem pales into significance as far as believers or pseudo-sceptics are concerned, because the real matter at hand is the image itself.?
That makes absolutely no sense. Of course the genesis of the image is not ‘beside the point’. That’s the whole point, surely?
>>and of course, imagining the entire image while executing the painting, back, front and inside out to all match perfectly while taking into account perspective distortion and blood flow into relevant parts, and one last thing – the whole image would be done in negative! All of this would have to have been done by a painter WITHOUT A SINGLE MISTAKE. The microscope has shown that quite clearly.
Contrary to what you say about ‘nobody has been able to explain how the image could have been made’, and as I have already pointed out, this would have been a trivial undertaking – merely paint a body with some kind of pigment and wrap it in a cloth. Why do you keep repeating the stupid notion that critics insist it was ‘painted’? I never said that, and as far as I know, NO-ONE who is critical of the shroud says that. (And there’s no evidence of blood flow, as I’m sure you are totally aware – that’s pareidolia and conjecture at best)
Your elaborate demonstration that a even a painter of genius couldn’t have made the image is meaningless. ANYONE could have painted a body and wrapped it in a cloth. Even unintentionally, unguents or oils could have made a life-like impression of a body. Aging does the rest. As I’ve said before, the fact that it’s a negative is completely UNSURPRISING, even though you seem to have trouble with that – it’s a natural consequence of the higher contours of the form being in heavier contact with the cloth.
And, just to be clear here, I’m not a ‘pseudo-sceptic’, whatever that is. I’m a dyed-in-the-wool total skeptic. I don’t equivocate.
I agree with Mr.Miller when he states that even famous painters from the renaissance period could not have painted such an image but not just because of lack of technical means the reason is just because microscopical spectromety and chemical analysis discarded paint pigments dyes or stains responsible for the image.
As a matter of fact the image «did happen by a means other than painting» it is the visual effect of colored areas of the Shroud fading into colorless ones.Colored areas are the result of chemical change in a thin polysaccharide layer on topmost fibers of Shroud threads but what caused that has not yet been determined with certainty by scientific studies.
Of course that it is beyond the scope of science to prove that the image is of Jesus body but with all the historical and scientific knowledge it turns out that it cannot be other than Jesus´image that is the only logical conclusion.
When it comes to Mr. Anagliph I guess his claims are simply ludicrous and nobody would believe that painting a body and wrapping it in a cloth authomatically creates a negative-like effect on it not to mention 3D and Holographic properties as the Shroud image posseses.
And by the way not just contact body areas produced image on the Shroud non contact areas produced also lighter color effects as distance from the cloth incrases.The flows depicted on the Shroud are real human aged blood as forensic and biochemistry experts concluded.
Even so called skeptics or dyed-in-the-wool total skeptic should be wise enough not to equivocate and not to behave as iconoclasts making preposterous assertions .
regards
Maria da Glória
CENTRO PORTUGUÊS DE SINDONOLOGIA
It was during a TV program concerning the Shroud of Turin, that I learned some things about Leonardo De Vinci which were quite a surprise. Some things I believe were on the program I will relate.
Leonardo De Vinci who was much more than a painter, did have access to the equipment which produced negative images like those found on the cloth of Turin. There were a small number of people who were performing the process and the idea was beginning to take hold in different areas. De Vinci had plenty of time on his hands while he stayed with a royal family. This hospitality was what allowed him to gain access to the equipment needed to produce the Shroud. At this time the very same type images could be produced on a lesser scale than the shroud. He was in the area that produced these images through a special heating process. He loved to have challenges. He put one of the lesser images on one end of the cloth and the other half of the body on the bottom end of the cloth,to produce the whole effect and therefore created a large production. He loved to show mirror images in his paintings. De Vinci already had created images also, behind many of his paintings. Many of his paintings like the “Mona Lisa” showed features of his very own face. Restorers of his works are the professionals who discovered these images beneath his paintings. De Vinci could get his hands on materials which were very old to use for the cloth of the shroud. He loved to dupe people so he could be the very one who would let you believe it was Jesus on the shroud. He was very creative and would invent, think, research, paint, build and would not mention to anyone what little secrets went along with his invention or paintings. He felt good to see he could fool people. He was a perfectionist and would be quite precise to make sure he did the most excellent job. Whatever it took to make it look real is what he would do. When De Vinci passed away at this royal household, the Shroud of Turin was on display very close by.