floomfs?
Two years ago, Stephen Wagner, in his role as“Paranormal Phenomenon Guide” for the web publication About.com, wrote an article titled, Why the Shroud of Turin is Fake. I mentioned it in this blog on April 2, 2012. I thought it was silly. I still do.
Just yesterday, Stephen tells us that one of his readers named Robert has responded with his own ideas about why the shroud is probably not authentic.
Instead, what we see on the shroud is an image that projects from a complex shape all in one direction – that is, toward the perspective of an observer. There is focus, definition, proportion, all codified through the perspective of an observer. It’s how we’re used to seeing things, so people don’t pick up on it as an anomaly or error, but it’s not at all how the image must appear if it’s what it purports to be.
The shroud image requires that the shroud rose up above Jesus, stretched itself smooth and taut, and then a signal rose up from his body and headed toward a focus. No energy was scattered, it all just went one way and one way only – toward the eye of the viewer. And as it passed through the hovering, smooth sheet, it imprinted information only on the superficial fibers, somehow carrying along with it some understanding of its own distance traveled, so that it could render an artistic coding of the depth dimension, in terms of shadowing, etc.
ALL SORTS OF LOGICAL PROBLEMS
The idea is fairly absurd, on its face, but let’s imagine that that happened. The sheet rises up in a ghostly manner, and smooths itself out. Oh wait – it’s attached at the top, where it doubles back around under the body. So it can’t rise up to get some distance for the photo. Also, the goo and the gore which is in nice registry with the image, wouldn’t correspond in that way if the image was formed out of contact with the body.
There are all sorts of problems with the shroud. Jesus is lying on his back, having been through a very rough day, and yet his hair is not only fluffy and nicely styled, and not only projects its own image directly upward to the sheet, but it is indifferent to the effects of gravity. His hair is the hair of someone standing up. It floomfs out and falls to his shoulders. The hair of someone who’s been bleeding and sweating all day and is lying on his back, doesn’t look like that, even if we imagine that he was carefully shampooed, rinsed, and blow-dried.
And how does Robert address the fact that nobody can explain how the image was formed?
"How was it made?" is a pretty tough question to answer about nearly anything – we don’t even know exactly how cigarettes are made because the manufacturers don’t want us to know.
[ . . . ]
My own feeling is that the image was meant to be ghostly and suggestive (though records show that it was much brighter and clearer at the time of its creation than it is now), and that it was really the now-mostly-vanished gore that was painted on that was the "image" seen centuries ago.
[ . . . ]
Someone figured out how to reverse color scale, liked the strangeness of images made that way, and realized how perfect that technique would be for a magical "picture".
Anything new? Is Robert the new L’enfant Terrible of skeptical explanations?
Anything new? Is Robert the new L’enfant Terrible of skeptical explanations?
No and no. Nihil novi sub sole.
Stephen Wagner should know the difference between Paranormal and Supranormal. The image reminds one about the way some priests of the Russian Orthodox Church tie their hair. The “mandylion'” carried by Russian Soldiers in the battefield during the time of Tsar Nicholas II also shows the same feature, and can be seen in IWs first Shroud book, published in 1978.
Would someone tell me where these supposed records are that say the Shroud was “brighter and clearer” in earlier times? I see this mentioned in all of the skeptical literature, but I’ve never seen one direct quote or piece of evidence that says this is true. I’d like to know where that information is, and if it’s available to the general public. Thanks for any info.
Some people think that some barely visible features on the Shroud were more visible in the past, and depicted on some old icons of Jesus. Anyway, there are no evidence for the Shroud being brighter in the past.The fact that originally white Shroud yellowed with time (thus the contrast with the image was getting smaller) may also play some factor in the perception of the image.
Thanks very much, O.K. That’s what I suspected.
« On le voidt clérement ensanglenté du trés précieux sang de Jhesus, nostre Rédempteur, comme se la chose avoit esté faicte aujourd´hui. On y voidt l´imprimure de tout son trés sainct corpz, teste, viaire, bouce, yeulx, nez, corps, mains, pieds et ses chinq playes ». (Antoine de Lalaing, Shroud Ostension by Philippe le Beau, Bourg-en-Bresse the April 14, 1503, Good Friday)
Personal translation: “She looks clearly bloodstained with the most precious blood of Jesus, our Redeemer, AS IF THIS HAD HAPPENED TODAY. We can see printed all her divine body, head, face, mouth, eyes, nose, body, hands, feet and five wounds,” etc.
“…all HIS divine body…”. Sorry.