one thing leads to another... - DPChallenge Forums

03/02/2006 11:25:07 PM · #1

was reading on the optical illusion thread in the forums, linked to an optical illusion website, then what do you know? got carried away and clicked on the image of "the man in mars" and further links carried me to this "Shroud of Turin".

I hope I'm not creating a religious debate here. But this is from an article (About.com) on the shroud.

"One item that initially caused confusion was the revelation that the image of the man showed wounds in his wrists, not the hands as was traditionally believed and portrayed in various paintings of the crucifixion. But, tests conducted on corpses during the 1950's indicated that hanging via nails in the hands was not possible as the structure of the hand is not sufficient to support the weight of a man. Additionally, archeological digs have uncovered other crucified victims who bore wounds in their wrists, not their hands."

Makes me believe even more on this, "history is only as accurate as the historian".

What do you think on all these? Please try to keep an open mind, we DO live in a crazy world, afterall.

03/02/2006 11:30:01 PM · #2

OK OK - this is a particular pet peeve of mine. I'm a huge student of ancient history and have heard all of the views and opinions I think. And some say DiVinci made it and some prove that and some say that's not possible and they prove that and so on and so on.....

here's the rub for me.....

the image shows the front of the person's body and a fold line and the back of the person's body...........WHERE IS THE DEPTH OF THE HEAD???? was it wrapped around a paper doll? Why do people not address this in the zillion books / programs on the subject. Am I the only one who notices? There is no top of the head! only front & back - and a fold line! ugh!

k - off my soapbox now :)

Edit to mention this statement was meant in no way a religios opinion or judgement in any way, only a viewpoint of the modern scientific study of an ancient artifact.

Message edited by author 2006-03-02 23:39:23.

03/02/2006 11:47:29 PM · #3

Originally posted by idnic:

the image shows the front of the person's body and a fold line and the back of the person's body...........WHERE IS THE DEPTH OF THE HEAD???? was it wrapped around a paper doll? Why do people not address this in the zillion books / programs on the subject. Am I the only one who notices? There is no top of the head! only front & back - and a fold line!

Interesting observation, Cindi. I'm researching more about it now. I'm not a religious person, but I find religions highly interesting.

Could you explain a little more on the head depth you were talking about?

03/02/2006 11:56:44 PM · #4

Well, there - where the arrow is. Its where front of head meets back of head. very 2-d. i studied human porportion in art school and have looked at the front and back porportions. the head is same lenght on both front and back - so where is the top of his head? there is no allowance here for the cloth to wrap over the top. only front meets back. or that's the way I see it and I've looked at it for years. I love history. :)

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/03/2006 01:46:28 AM · #5

"Through the use of microscopy, it has been determined that the image is a result of discoloration of only the outermost fibers of the fabric, which suggests that the image may have been created through a radiative process. Painting is ruled out."

now this above is interesting because the marks are not caused by paint, prints and unlikely to be stains. It is caused by some sort of radiation from the body itself!

Message edited by author 2006-03-03 02:37:06.

PhilipDyer

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

03/03/2006 01:58:58 AM · #6

There's absolutely no doubt that this is a painting. It's a very cool painting because the artist did it in negative before technology made that a fairly simple thing to conceptualize, but it is still a painting.

To further explain what Cindi is saying, wet your face and wrap a white sheet around it. The wet imprint of your face on the cloth will come out looking extremely wide, like it's been flattened by a bulldozer or stretched like Silly Putty. It looks nothing like the image on the shroud.

03/03/2006 02:38:24 AM · #7

Originally posted by PhilipDyer:

I'm a skeptic too. I first thought it to be a clever painting/print but read more and you'll realize they have tested it and it is created by some sort of radiation or energy from the body itself...

Stagolee

Kodak Easyshare C180

Canon EF 50mm f1.2L

03/03/2006 02:58:09 AM · #8

I thought it was proven to be a hoax in the 90s by carbon dating.??

03/03/2006 02:59:57 AM · #9

Originally posted by keegbow:

I thought it was proven to be a hoax in the 90s by carbon dating.??

nope. carbon dating do not work, because of the fires.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

03/03/2006 07:47:27 AM · #10

The Learning Channel did a thing recently where they tried to prove a really odd photographic tecnique that was considered evil magic in the 11th century created the shroud. The program both proves and disproves its own theory at once, but the photo technique was really interesting. I'd recommend checking the program out if it replays in your area.

rox_rox

Canon EOS-20D

03/03/2006 09:10:25 AM · #11

Here's my question about the shroud:

Assuming it could ever be shown that it's not a fake; how could anyone say know that it is Christ's image? Even if it were real, couldn't it be the shroud of one of the many people who have been crucified over time?