Donald, who runs Wisdomblogs.com, after quite a bit of picture show-and-tell, writes in his blog:
The picture of the Shroud of Turin is one of a medieval man both in and out of Armour, the beard style on the man represents the same period of time as does the sword.
He is referring to the two images of the man on the shroud. The whole world acknowledges that these are front and back views. Donald doesn’t think so. To him the back view (pictured here) is another frontal view of the same man but in full medieval armor. He is resting his hands on the guard of the hilt of his sword.
It’s true, you can see almost anything you want in the images on the shroud if you have imagination and are willing to confuse image color with bloodstains, dirt, creases, burn marks, water stains, and weaving anomalies. They cannot be distinguished one from another in the picture that Donald used. It is a single-color colorized version of the black and white photograph by Giuseppe Enrie taken in 1931. (Blood, image, dirt, water stains, etc. are all the same brown color; blue after Donald reversed it in his negative to positive software). The picture Donald used was from Wikipedia and is only 613 pixels wide, not very useful for careful analysis.
Also the man appears fully dressed to me, there is no way he is naked.
At the very earliest this kind of picture can only come from medieval times, the fact that the armour and sword are shown together proves that and that I know of, there was no such armour during the life of Jesus.
Theory 1 – In the old medieval days somebody had either a wall-rug or a floor-rug made, and the shroud was nothing more than part of the backing/dust cover for this rug.
The rug was then laid against a granite wall or floor which as everybody knows has slight radioactive properties, from this comes the photographic properties of the cloth.
Perhaps it was some other form of slightly radioactive rock, I need to do some more research on this.
Theory 2 – The shroud has been manipulated with radiative reflections spreading in an angular direction equal to the refractive angle of the light reflecting off the sword. The method used was common at the beginning of photography … The very first form of modern silk printing ( a very crude explanation, I shall do some research first then I shall explain this further)
Then after referring to an article by Barrie Schwortz (he refers to it as A great article on the photographic properties of the cloth – which it is, BTW), he continues after obviously misunderstanding much of what Barrie has written:
Secondo Pio (sic), the photographer who first took the original shroud pictures, used two electric flash lights of 1000 candela each. His first exposures failed and he had to return for a second try.
I think enough is enough, the point is well made, whatever else it might show and however it might have been made and even regardless of its age, the Shroud of Turin does not reflect the face of Jesus.
But why should anybody believe me when it is so much more fun to exaggerate the issue and have millions of Catholics pray to what is obviously just a piece of common cloth.
Regardless ….. that a common scientific issue should be regarded as a religious icon despite the fact that the second commandment tells us not to worship such things is an affront to Christian religious thought.
Why not just give them a rag doll and tell them it was Jesus’ very own G-man?
When the posting got to comments:
Martin Lack, a Brit who writes another blog called Lack of Environment, wrote:
“Like I just said to you, Donald, you cannot debunk a 2hr television programme without watching it to see what new evidence they present…”
To which Donald replied:
“No, but I can debunk the shroud by showing the complete picture of the shroud and not just half of it. I’m sorry, as I said ,,, it is not Jesus.”
We are certainly going to wait for the additional research from Donald. And if you want to see what Martin Lack said in full, click on I just said to you. The short of it is:
Donald, you may be interested to track down “The Real Face of Jesus” on you tube. In total, it is a 2-hour programme (minus adverts probably no more than 90 minutes) . . . .
But do scroll up and read the entire posting. It is called “Syria – The game’s afoot.” This guy Donald has some strong opinions – or is it just a blogging personality – and an apparent propensity to ignore real research. I would hope that he would so some real reading at Barrie’s site. Or here. Or at www.shroudstory.com.