DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> one thing leads to another...
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 17 of 17, (reverse)
AuthorThread
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?

' . substr('//www.shroud.com/shrdbig2.jpg', strrpos('//www.shroud.com/shrdbig2.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
03/02/2006 11:56:44 PM · #4
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/15266/thumb/302509.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/15266/thumb/302509.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

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. :)
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.
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:

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.


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...
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.
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.
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?
03/03/2006 09:29:15 AM · #12
Originally posted by greatandsmall:

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?


So true. The first time its mentioned historically was hundreds of years (I believe I heard 400 years) after Christ's death.
03/03/2006 09:52:39 AM · #13
"history is only as accurate as the historian"

It wasn't historians saying that Christ was crucified through the palms, it was painters. A nail through the palm is a far more moving and symbolic image than a nail through the wrist.

And there was no mention of it until over 1,300 years after Christ's death.
03/03/2006 11:52:28 AM · #14
Originally posted by crayon:

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...


I have read about it and watched a show on the History Channel and every single thing I've ever seen has confirmed that it is a hoax. A very clever hoax, but it has absolutely been confirmed to be a painting that dates to the 14th century. It's not real.

And again, if it were an actual burial shroud, it would look nothing like this. This image is completely 2-dimensional, as Cindi and countless other scholars have pointed out.
03/03/2006 12:08:33 PM · #15
It's still all conjecture they have proved nothing.
03/03/2006 12:33:17 PM · #16
I saw the same show on the History Channel...and yes it is a fake. I also saw the show about how it might be an old photo. That was very interesting!
The reason they believe it to be Christ is that at the moment when Christ resurrected, the power of that moment would leave an imprint on the shroud. The bible also states that there should be no images of God. He knows we would worship that image and not Him. As is happening with the shroud to a degree. God would not allow an actual 'photo' of Christ. We are to believe without seeing.
03/03/2006 02:09:42 PM · #17
Originally posted by crayon:

Originally posted by PhilipDyer:

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.


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...

You know, I was sick a couple of weeks ago -- spent the better part of 4 days under a single sheet, too weak to move. But the sheet doesn't have my imprint on it.

David
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/19/2021 07:10:59 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/19/2021 07:10:59 AM EST.