idiot -- try using small arms to defend your home against fighter jets and see for yourself how it works out. easily said from the comfort of your armchair
I have little patience typing on my iPad but, the accuracy of the image on the Shroud of Turin being correct is the exact argument that a burst of radiation of some type at the split second of the Resurection is what dried out the surface ( on both sides of the cloth; front and back ) of the linen producing the image. Whatever type of radiation emitted the rays would only travel in a straight line up and down. That is also what caused the shading intensity. Do not forget that the information drawn from the image can actually be used to generate a 3D model something photographs and paintings cannot do. Perhaps our science is not at the level to prove what produced the image but it is advanced enough to prove for certain that the image was not made by the human hand.
Yes, Caesar is the Hitler of the last century before 0, and the crimes he commited were so similar to the ones against all tribesmen, beeing from north or south america, africa or asia.
Divide et imperae may or may not be from him, but it was his politics all along, divide, imparae and slaughter into submission the survivors.
Yes, Caesar is the Hitler of the last century before 0, and the crimes he commited were so similar to the ones against all tribesmen, beeing from north or south america, africa or asia.
Divide et imperae may or may not be from him, but it was his politics all along, divide, imparae and slaughter into submission the survivors.
Another fine example of a People not coming together to defend their homes. The males fleeing Syria could learn from this, the overthrow of the Aztecs and what happened to the Native Americans.
The demon-possessed commenters never fail to show up when the story concerns God and Jesus and all things related. They work diligently to try and destroy, and as they have since the beginning utterly fail. Once I considered them merely ignorant,now, clearly evil. Resist them and their words of death and they will flee.
Your comments are consistent with my observations and experience. Pride is what blinds the so-called (or self-identified) "smart" ones from learning. Anything they don't - or can't - understand is automatically labeled ridiculous or worse. They cannot bring themselves to admit - to themselves or those they consider beneath them) that they don't know and/or understand everything there is to know and/or understand. Humility is not something they know or experience.
I have observed so many phenomena in desert regions, far away from any water (sea or ocean), that can only be explained by a global flood.
Those who scoff at the notion of a global flood also scoff at any mention of God and accountability to that ultimate authority, and anything associated with it.
Many who appeal to "science" do not understand, or do not acknowledge, that it is only one process humans use to gather knowledge, and that humans are very prone to error, bias, and ulterior motives that can and do taint or completely falsify the results / conclusions.
You say I don't have this book. That seems defensive rather than constructive to me. I'll take another look for the draping problem this evening, if I think of it. I have many great ideas until I get home and forget! :-)
Found this on a discussion board. Is this what's in the book that you're thinking of?
One of the theories for the creation of the image on the Shroud was advanced by Dr. Alan Mills of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Leicester, and ties into this theory of the Shroud. The theory is fully described in Dr. Mills' paper: "Image Formation of the Shroud of Turin", in Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 1995, 20(4), pp. 319-326. Dr. Mills noted that the Shroud image is remarkably similar to the faint yellow-brown markings of very old botanical specimens that have been kept dry and pressed in paper. These "plant pictures" share many characteristics with the Shroud image, including revealing a remarkable amount of detail in negative photographic images. The process that creates these markings, known as Volkringer patterns, is not fully understood, but it is believed that a lactic acid reaction is involved in the process.
Dr. Mills also recalled a phenomenon that had caused trouble for early makers of photographic plates, known as the Russel Effect. Spurious images on early photographic plates could have been produced by the proximity of materials like newsprint, resinous woods, aluminum, and vegetable oils. This image creation process is linked to the release of free radicals from those substances.
The theory advanced by Dr. Mills is that the crucified man in the Shroud would have experienced tremendous physical trauma that would have resulted in an increased buildup of lactic acid in his system. This lactic acid being excreted by the victim's body would have reacted with ordinary molecular oxygen in the air, producing free radical singlet oxygen. These single oxygen atoms would have traveled to the linen shroud covering the victim, releasing their excess energy into the fibers of the cloth and turning back into ordinary molecular oxygen in the process.
The singlet oxygen atoms would eventually cause a yellowing of the cloth, but this discoloration would not occur instantaneously. The initial energy release starts what is essentially a chain reaction that is like extremely slow scorching of the cloth. Over several years, if the cloth were kept in a dark place with plenty of oxygen, the darkening of the image would continue until all of the affected linen fibers were spent.
I tired of religious people quoting there book thinking that it just instantly ends any argument. Welp, guess what it doesn't. There are 3000+ religions out there and you one dessert dweller book doesn't change that. They all clam to be true, but there probably all wrong. The odds might have been stacked against us but it was mathematicly impossible for an earth-like plant not to have formed. Open your mind and thin outside the religious box.
Allen, I’m sorry but everything I’ve stated is in ‘the book’. I especially ordered another copy which arrived today as my original copy was lost. I’ve confirmed my facts against this copy! I’m sorry I do appreciate your time responding to me but I can’t further mine to you when it feels like I’m running into a brick wall. You claim to have a copy of The Second Messiah by Robert Lomas and Christpher Knight but it’s clear and obvious that you do not. Please refer to Dr Allan Mills’ work on the creation of the image.
I do find it lifelike. And the painting you list doesn’t resemble the negative image on the shroud at all. You quote wikipedia but I think we all know that it is run by a cabal of skeptics who fight tooth and nail against anything out of the ordinary. I don’t trust it in matters of enquiry. The wiki editors’ work in defaming Dr Rupert Sheldrake amongst others is enough for me to take it’s contents with a pinch of salt, especially around fringe science. But I digress – Pierre d’Arcis, the church lawyer who claimed the shroud a fake. I’m not going to go into it here but once again, that whole ‘story’ is investigated and explained in the book I refer to. His describing the shroud as fake had everything to do with politics and zero truth.
“My opinion is that it was originally painted” Allen I’ve provided reason already which supports the claim it was not painted. And you will find this inthe work Lomas/Knight have collated from various sources, both professional and scholarly. If you don’t have the book, you can purchase it for two quid online – I promise it’s a good read.
"a book you state you have on your book shelf and which covers the matter of distortion quite extensively, and which for some reason you have failed to include in your arguments."
I've 'failed' to include it because it is not in the book as you claim. It's your claim, not mine. Which you fail to cite... not being mean but--right? You say it's there. Up to you to say where.
The other thing... cool! I'll look into: " lose vertical convection process known as auto-oxidation, on the flat cloth. You could research Dr Allan Mills’ work on the subject."
There's a real problem with what's called the Volkringer pattern which was created in a book of pressed leaves. I think if you look at the resulting pictures from Volkringer's found images, you'll start to see why. Volkringer isn't trying to fool anyone but it really probably isn't what it seems. You have to ask why the image looks like 3D leaf 'as if' someone was shining a light from the top at a steep angle. Hmmm... :-)
But still, it's a flat leaf in a flat book impressed upon a flat paper.
And, I don't find this image to be lifelike at all--it looks inferior and--assuming it's a painting for a moment, it's a pretty crappy painting in my opinion. If you think that's a life-like image of a face--that's your take on it. But that's all a side issue that, like the testing and does not even need to be stepped into.
As a side-bar--to help you refine your argument--the Medieval period is arguably 410-1453 A.D. or some say shorter, depending on who you ask but still a long time. To make your point about painting style being a 'non-starter' I'd think you'd want to make the claim about the painting style at the time this cloth was suspected to be forged. So pick a date--saying 'the medieval period' is not afixing a painting style. Let me help by going with 1390, "...when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to Antipope Clement VII, stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed." (wikipedia [22][23])
I'd think You'd really want to show that painting was two-dimensional and crude in the late 1300's for it to be a 'non-starter' right? But, wasn't that the beginning of the Renaissance? But even before that wide influence, painters were doing decent 3D. See:
Procession of Saint Gregory, ca. 1300, Musee Conde, Chantilly. and
Duccio di Buoninsegna, Italian, c. 1255 - 1318, The Nativity with the Prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel, 1308/1311
Look especially at the Prophet Isaiah.
And, I don't find this image to be lifelike at all--it looks inferior and--assuming it's a painting for a moment, it's a pretty crappy painting in my opinion. If you think that's a life-like image of a face--that's your take on it. But that's all a side issue that, like the testing and does not even need to be stepped into.
As a side-bar--to help you refine your argument--the Medieval period is arguably 410-1453 A.D. or some say shorter, depending on who you ask but still a long time. To make your point about painting style being a 'non-starter' I'd think you'd want to make the claim about the painting style at the time this cloth was suspected to be forged. So pick a date--saying 'the medieval period' is not afixing a painting style. Let me help by going with 1390, "...when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to Antipope Clement VII, stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed." (wikipedia [22][23])
I'd think You'd really want to show that painting was two-dimensional and crude in the late 1300's for it to be a 'non-starter' right? But, wasn't that the beginning of the Renaissance? But even before that wide influence, painters were doing decent 3D. See:
Procession of Saint Gregory, ca. 1300, Musee Conde, Chantilly. and
Duccio di Buoninsegna, Italian, c. 1255 - 1318, The Nativity with the Prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel, 1308/1311
Look especially at the Prophet Isaiah.
"...fake is based on [that] The image was painted..."
No, that is incorrect. I do not base my claim on it being painted.
My opinion is that it was originally painted. How it was done is not even that interesting to me. I've viewed uncountable medieval paintings both live and printed. They had advanced beyond 2D Egyptian wall paintings! So, I don't see that as a non-starter.
With all due respect, I’m not certain you actually own the book I’ve been referring to. The process of auto-oxidation without the need to drape the cloth over the subject explains the image quite clearly therein. And this process has also been backed up by work and experiments based on the shroud by Dr Allan Mills. This is enough ‘proof’ for me to at least entertain the theory proposed in the Knight/Lomas works, and certainly over believing what ever scepticism you have on the matter. Sorry to say.
Allen, I’m assuming that your view that the cloth is fake is based on one or both of the following:
The image was painted
The image is impossible to create by Volkringer pattern or other process due to the absence of distortion, even without testing the creation of one yourself
The first is a non-starter theory for me because no medieval artists painted in such a lifelike style, they would not have painted a negative image (which the shroud contains) and all medieval painting show Christ being crucified with nails through the palms and not through the wrists as in the shroud. Other evidence has shown that the shroud cannot possibly be a painting because while the shroud shows a continuous uninterrupted visible image it does not show a continuous undamaged visible medium film.
For the second, the effects of the shroud have in fact been reproduced, with the findings provided in the Second Messiah, a book you state you have on your book shelf and which covers the matter of distortion quite extensively, and which for some reason you have failed to include in your arguments. The shroud itself does indeed have distortions which are well noted in the book. The image on the shroud was not caused by contact with the cloth (which would cause the distortions you explain) but rather a close vertical convection process known as auto-oxidation, on the flat cloth. You could research Dr Allan Mills’ work on the subject.
Here you can navigate quickly through all comments made in any article sorted by date/time.
idiot -- try using small arms to defend your home against fighter jets and see for yourself how it works out. easily said from the comfort of your armchair
I have little patience typing on my iPad but, the accuracy of the image on the Shroud of Turin being correct is the exact argument that a burst of radiation of some type at the split second of the Resurection is what dried out the surface ( on both sides of the cloth; front and back ) of the linen producing the image. Whatever type of radiation emitted the rays would only travel in a straight line up and down. That is also what caused the shading intensity. Do not forget that the information drawn from the image can actually be used to generate a 3D model something photographs and paintings cannot do. Perhaps our science is not at the level to prove what produced the image but it is advanced enough to prove for certain that the image was not made by the human hand.
I use an app called adblock and no problem with popups. I love this site and being able to read it undisturbed is awesome.
Yes, Caesar is the Hitler of the last century before 0, and the crimes he commited were so similar to the ones against all tribesmen, beeing from north or south america, africa or asia.
Divide et imperae may or may not be from him, but it was his politics all along, divide, imparae and slaughter into submission the survivors.
Yes, Caesar is the Hitler of the last century before 0, and the crimes he commited were so similar to the ones against all tribesmen, beeing from north or south america, africa or asia.
Divide et imperae may or may not be from him, but it was his politics all along, divide, imparae and slaughter into submission the survivors.
Another fine example of a People not coming together to defend their homes. The males fleeing Syria could learn from this, the overthrow of the Aztecs and what happened to the Native Americans.
The demon-possessed commenters never fail to show up when the story concerns God and Jesus and all things related. They work diligently to try and destroy, and as they have since the beginning utterly fail. Once I considered them merely ignorant,now, clearly evil. Resist them and their words of death and they will flee.
Your comments are consistent with my observations and experience. Pride is what blinds the so-called (or self-identified) "smart" ones from learning. Anything they don't - or can't - understand is automatically labeled ridiculous or worse. They cannot bring themselves to admit - to themselves or those they consider beneath them) that they don't know and/or understand everything there is to know and/or understand. Humility is not something they know or experience.
I have observed so many phenomena in desert regions, far away from any water (sea or ocean), that can only be explained by a global flood.
Those who scoff at the notion of a global flood also scoff at any mention of God and accountability to that ultimate authority, and anything associated with it.
Many who appeal to "science" do not understand, or do not acknowledge, that it is only one process humans use to gather knowledge, and that humans are very prone to error, bias, and ulterior motives that can and do taint or completely falsify the results / conclusions.
You say I don't have this book. That seems defensive rather than constructive to me. I'll take another look for the draping problem this evening, if I think of it. I have many great ideas until I get home and forget! :-)
Found this on a discussion board. Is this what's in the book that you're thinking of?
One of the theories for the creation of the image on the Shroud was advanced by Dr. Alan Mills of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Leicester, and ties into this theory of the Shroud. The theory is fully described in Dr. Mills' paper: "Image Formation of the Shroud of Turin", in Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 1995, 20(4), pp. 319-326. Dr. Mills noted that the Shroud image is remarkably similar to the faint yellow-brown markings of very old botanical specimens that have been kept dry and pressed in paper. These "plant pictures" share many characteristics with the Shroud image, including revealing a remarkable amount of detail in negative photographic images. The process that creates these markings, known as Volkringer patterns, is not fully understood, but it is believed that a lactic acid reaction is involved in the process.
Dr. Mills also recalled a phenomenon that had caused trouble for early makers of photographic plates, known as the Russel Effect. Spurious images on early photographic plates could have been produced by the proximity of materials like newsprint, resinous woods, aluminum, and vegetable oils. This image creation process is linked to the release of free radicals from those substances.
The theory advanced by Dr. Mills is that the crucified man in the Shroud would have experienced tremendous physical trauma that would have resulted in an increased buildup of lactic acid in his system. This lactic acid being excreted by the victim's body would have reacted with ordinary molecular oxygen in the air, producing free radical singlet oxygen. These single oxygen atoms would have traveled to the linen shroud covering the victim, releasing their excess energy into the fibers of the cloth and turning back into ordinary molecular oxygen in the process.
The singlet oxygen atoms would eventually cause a yellowing of the cloth, but this discoloration would not occur instantaneously. The initial energy release starts what is essentially a chain reaction that is like extremely slow scorching of the cloth. Over several years, if the cloth were kept in a dark place with plenty of oxygen, the darkening of the image would continue until all of the affected linen fibers were spent.
I tired of religious people quoting there book thinking that it just instantly ends any argument. Welp, guess what it doesn't. There are 3000+ religions out there and you one dessert dweller book doesn't change that. They all clam to be true, but there probably all wrong. The odds might have been stacked against us but it was mathematicly impossible for an earth-like plant not to have formed. Open your mind and thin outside the religious box.
Allen, I’m sorry but everything I’ve stated is in ‘the book’. I especially ordered another copy which arrived today as my original copy was lost. I’ve confirmed my facts against this copy! I’m sorry I do appreciate your time responding to me but I can’t further mine to you when it feels like I’m running into a brick wall. You claim to have a copy of The Second Messiah by Robert Lomas and Christpher Knight but it’s clear and obvious that you do not. Please refer to Dr Allan Mills’ work on the creation of the image.
I do find it lifelike. And the painting you list doesn’t resemble the negative image on the shroud at all. You quote wikipedia but I think we all know that it is run by a cabal of skeptics who fight tooth and nail against anything out of the ordinary. I don’t trust it in matters of enquiry. The wiki editors’ work in defaming Dr Rupert Sheldrake amongst others is enough for me to take it’s contents with a pinch of salt, especially around fringe science. But I digress – Pierre d’Arcis, the church lawyer who claimed the shroud a fake. I’m not going to go into it here but once again, that whole ‘story’ is investigated and explained in the book I refer to. His describing the shroud as fake had everything to do with politics and zero truth.
“My opinion is that it was originally painted” Allen I’ve provided reason already which supports the claim it was not painted. And you will find this inthe work Lomas/Knight have collated from various sources, both professional and scholarly. If you don’t have the book, you can purchase it for two quid online – I promise it’s a good read.
"a book you state you have on your book shelf and which covers the matter of distortion quite extensively, and which for some reason you have failed to include in your arguments."
I've 'failed' to include it because it is not in the book as you claim. It's your claim, not mine. Which you fail to cite... not being mean but--right? You say it's there. Up to you to say where.
The other thing... cool! I'll look into: " lose vertical convection process known as auto-oxidation, on the flat cloth. You could research Dr Allan Mills’ work on the subject."
There's a real problem with what's called the Volkringer pattern which was created in a book of pressed leaves. I think if you look at the resulting pictures from Volkringer's found images, you'll start to see why. Volkringer isn't trying to fool anyone but it really probably isn't what it seems. You have to ask why the image looks like 3D leaf 'as if' someone was shining a light from the top at a steep angle. Hmmm... :-)
But still, it's a flat leaf in a flat book impressed upon a flat paper.
And, I don't find this image to be lifelike at all--it looks inferior and--assuming it's a painting for a moment, it's a pretty crappy painting in my opinion. If you think that's a life-like image of a face--that's your take on it. But that's all a side issue that, like the testing and does not even need to be stepped into.
As a side-bar--to help you refine your argument--the Medieval period is arguably 410-1453 A.D. or some say shorter, depending on who you ask but still a long time. To make your point about painting style being a 'non-starter' I'd think you'd want to make the claim about the painting style at the time this cloth was suspected to be forged. So pick a date--saying 'the medieval period' is not afixing a painting style. Let me help by going with 1390, "...when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to Antipope Clement VII, stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed." (wikipedia [22][23])
I'd think You'd really want to show that painting was two-dimensional and crude in the late 1300's for it to be a 'non-starter' right? But, wasn't that the beginning of the Renaissance? But even before that wide influence, painters were doing decent 3D. See:
Procession of Saint Gregory, ca. 1300, Musee Conde, Chantilly. and
Duccio di Buoninsegna, Italian, c. 1255 - 1318, The Nativity with the Prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel, 1308/1311
Look especially at the Prophet Isaiah.
And, I don't find this image to be lifelike at all--it looks inferior and--assuming it's a painting for a moment, it's a pretty crappy painting in my opinion. If you think that's a life-like image of a face--that's your take on it. But that's all a side issue that, like the testing and does not even need to be stepped into.
As a side-bar--to help you refine your argument--the Medieval period is arguably 410-1453 A.D. or some say shorter, depending on who you ask but still a long time. To make your point about painting style being a 'non-starter' I'd think you'd want to make the claim about the painting style at the time this cloth was suspected to be forged. So pick a date--saying 'the medieval period' is not afixing a painting style. Let me help by going with 1390, "...when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to Antipope Clement VII, stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed." (wikipedia [22][23])
I'd think You'd really want to show that painting was two-dimensional and crude in the late 1300's for it to be a 'non-starter' right? But, wasn't that the beginning of the Renaissance? But even before that wide influence, painters were doing decent 3D. See:
Procession of Saint Gregory, ca. 1300, Musee Conde, Chantilly. and
Duccio di Buoninsegna, Italian, c. 1255 - 1318, The Nativity with the Prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel, 1308/1311
Look especially at the Prophet Isaiah.
"...fake is based on [that] The image was painted..."
No, that is incorrect. I do not base my claim on it being painted.
My opinion is that it was originally painted. How it was done is not even that interesting to me. I've viewed uncountable medieval paintings both live and printed. They had advanced beyond 2D Egyptian wall paintings! So, I don't see that as a non-starter.
With all due respect, I’m not certain you actually own the book I’ve been referring to. The process of auto-oxidation without the need to drape the cloth over the subject explains the image quite clearly therein. And this process has also been backed up by work and experiments based on the shroud by Dr Allan Mills. This is enough ‘proof’ for me to at least entertain the theory proposed in the Knight/Lomas works, and certainly over believing what ever scepticism you have on the matter. Sorry to say.
Allen, I’m assuming that your view that the cloth is fake is based on one or both of the following:
The first is a non-starter theory for me because no medieval artists painted in such a lifelike style, they would not have painted a negative image (which the shroud contains) and all medieval painting show Christ being crucified with nails through the palms and not through the wrists as in the shroud. Other evidence has shown that the shroud cannot possibly be a painting because while the shroud shows a continuous uninterrupted visible image it does not show a continuous undamaged visible medium film.
For the second, the effects of the shroud have in fact been reproduced, with the findings provided in the Second Messiah, a book you state you have on your book shelf and which covers the matter of distortion quite extensively, and which for some reason you have failed to include in your arguments. The shroud itself does indeed have distortions which are well noted in the book. The image on the shroud was not caused by contact with the cloth (which would cause the distortions you explain) but rather a close vertical convection process known as auto-oxidation, on the flat cloth. You could research Dr Allan Mills’ work on the subject.
Pages