Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Shroud of Turin may not be a hoax after all. I'm not saying it's Jesus, but it's Jesus   (foxnews.com) divider line 433
    More: Interesting, Shroud of Turin, carbon datings  
•       •       •

14930 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Mar 2013 at 8:43 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



433 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-29 07:54:11 AM  
jesus or republican jesus??
 
2013-03-29 08:05:35 AM  
The Vatican has never confirmed the authenticity of the shroud

Because that is something that the Vatican somehow has the authority to do?
 
2013-03-29 08:18:55 AM  
Jesus was an alien.
 
2013-03-29 08:22:19 AM  

PainInTheASP: Jesus was an alien.


Possibly, I mean we've shown just in the last 8 years that humans tend to lack any public empathy and compassion, so maybe he was alien to this world

...or maybe Americans are just aliens to this world

/study it out
 
2013-03-29 08:32:29 AM  
How fortunate that Fox can get the Shroud of Turin in the news, just in time for Easter!
 
2013-03-29 08:44:53 AM  
It could be jesus, but the question is, who and or what was Jesus
 
2013-03-29 08:45:38 AM  
Must have been a study last month proving it was fake. This back and forth has been going on for decades now.
 
2013-03-29 08:45:44 AM  
ansnuclearcafe.org
 
2013-03-29 08:47:16 AM  
Yeah, and this might be true too.  But I doubt it.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-03-29 08:47:22 AM  
Two words missing there were "peer" and "reviewed".


/Padova is awesome
 
2013-03-29 08:48:38 AM  
Or someone that lived around that time.  Who knows.
 
2013-03-29 08:48:55 AM  
Fanti told the paper he rejects the conclusion of carbon dating tests conducted in 1988 that bolstered the theory the shroud was made in the 13th or 14th century in a medieval forgery.

Wanting to believe doesn't make it true.
 
2013-03-29 08:49:05 AM  

Hack Patooey:


That's a lot of balogna.

/the shroud of Turin is bullshiat
 
2013-03-29 08:49:40 AM  
It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.
 
2013-03-29 08:50:14 AM  

Close2TheEdge: Yeah, and this might be true too.  But I doubt it.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 409x384]


And in the third state he rode again
He absconded into safe haven and is seated at the right hand of Bat Father
 
2013-03-29 08:50:53 AM  
Jesus H. Christ?
 
2013-03-29 08:51:10 AM  
Those results, Fanti said, were "false" because of laboratory contamination, the Telegraph reported.

Sounds legit.
 
2013-03-29 08:51:29 AM  
FTA: The research linking the shroud to between 280 B.C. and A.D. 220


So they've narrowed it down to a 500-year period? That's some fine detective work there, Lou.
 
2013-03-29 08:52:11 AM  
i think they're just trying to get it to a point where pointing out their fantasy can be labeled 'The War on Shrouds'.
 
2013-03-29 08:52:35 AM  
I'm pretty sure the shroud exists.
 
2013-03-29 08:52:55 AM  
A made-up story about a hoax artifact, posted by a major news site on a religious holiday? Why, that can in no way be a ratings grab!
 
rpm
2013-03-29 08:52:57 AM  

Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.


Possibly not painted.
 
2013-03-29 08:53:02 AM  

Jon iz teh kewl: jesus or republican jesus??


Democrat Jesus.  He was a Jew...
 
2013-03-29 08:53:19 AM  
Even if they could date it to that time period, there's no way they can ever identify who left the "image" on the cloth. It's all a waste of time.

They didn't believe the carbon dating, but I bet they will believe this in a hurry.
 
2013-03-29 08:53:31 AM  

PainInTheASP: Jesus was an alien.


I think he was Spanish, Mexico wasn't even a country at that time.
 
2013-03-29 08:54:01 AM  

PsyLord: Or someone that lived around that time.  Who knows.


This. Even if it does date back to Jesus's time, that doesn't mean it was Jesus's burial shroud...it could've been someone's table cloth.
 
2013-03-29 08:54:14 AM  

Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.


This. The geometry of the face alone makes it a fake. I don't know why people are still arguing for authenticity.
 
2013-03-29 08:55:30 AM  

ChrisDe: FTA: The research linking the shroud to between 280 B.C. and A.D. 220


So they've narrowed it down to a 500-year period? That's some fine detective work there, Lou.


Didn't he die the year before 1 A.D.? So if it's real it would be from that year, no?
 
2013-03-29 08:55:44 AM  

PainInTheASP: Jesus was an alien.


That was a shiatty shiatty movie and Mr Scott should be ashamed of himself for it
 
2013-03-29 08:56:39 AM  
The most remarkable thing would be that they had a few yards of cloth woven with an 11th century technique that far in advance.

Seriously, the type of loom required to produce this linen fabric didn't exist until much later. You don't need to go any further. The only reason to try to prove it's older is cognitive dissonance.
 
2013-03-29 08:57:34 AM  

Point02GPA: PainInTheASP: Jesus was an alien.

I think he was Spanish, Mexico wasn't even a country at that time.


No, he was out picking onions.

dollarsandsense.org
 
2013-03-29 08:57:37 AM  

Jon iz teh kewl: jesus or republican jesus??


www.blogos.org
Why, it's History Channel's Pantene Pro-V Jesus, my child.
 
2013-03-29 08:58:55 AM  
"Fanti, a Catholic,"

Nice to know that the scientist is impartial.
 
2013-03-29 09:00:16 AM  

Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.


Oh yeah.  Well the Son of God defies all the laws of physics.  So there, ye who is destined for Hell.
 
2013-03-29 09:00:22 AM  
Isn't that blood on the forehead? Can we get some DNA and impregnate someone with a baby Jesus? We can actually play god.
 
2013-03-29 09:00:43 AM  

Bladel: How fortunate that Fox can get the Shroud of Turin in the news, just in time for Easter!


hmmmmmmmmmmm
 
2013-03-29 09:01:27 AM  

Mad_Radhu: Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.

This. The geometry of the face alone makes it a fake. I don't know why people are still arguing for authenticity.


But, but, the impression was made by his soul as it rose up to heaven, so there would be no distortion because his soul is perfect.

/Actually heard that from a christian once.
 
2013-03-29 09:01:28 AM  
Here's what's wrong with the Shroud:

1. The man is tall and thin, most men of the times had short stocky physiques;

2. His face is oval and elongate, most men of that place and time had round wide faces;

3. The nose is straight and long, most men of that place had short wide noses;

4. He has a high square forehead and a high hairline, most men of that place had a low hairline and rounded forehead;

5. He wears his hair shoulder length, most men of that place and time wore their hair about 1" long at most;

6. He wears a long beard, and most men of that place and time cropped their beards shorter than their hair, 1/2" on average;

7. Both the hair and the beard are straight, most men of that place and time had curly hair;

8. The forearms are abnormally long in proportion to the rest of the body, but the forelegs are normal in size, and it is nowhere written that Jesus suffered any such deformity;

9.  The reverse view of the body is 1/2" inch longer than the front view, and curvature of the cloth does not seem to account for this inconsistency.

Everyone who wrote about Jesus considered him important, and no one mentions anywhere that he looked any different from the common men of his place and time.  When the Romans came to take him, they had to ask who he was, which proves it even more conclusively.  Jesus did not look any different from the average man of his place and time, the facts do not support any other conclusion.
 
2013-03-29 09:01:43 AM  
I'd be hilarious if Pope Francis, being a Jesuit who seems open to reason, decreed it a fake and told everyone to get over it.
 
2013-03-29 09:02:04 AM  
I thought the shroud existed, forgery or not, till this morning.

Since the story is on Fox News, I expect that there never was any shroud at all.
-----

Carrying that thought to it's logical conclusion...

My savior was buried Naked !
..and I'm totally cool with that.
 
2013-03-29 09:02:19 AM  

captainstudd: Isn't that blood on the forehead? Can we get some DNA and impregnate someone with a baby Jesus? We can actually play god.


academic.depauw.edu

Life finds a way
 
2013-03-29 09:02:41 AM  
The Vatican has never confirmed the authenticity of the shroud, but a Vatican researcher in 2009 said that faint writing on the cloth proves it was used to wrap Jesus' body after his crucifixion.

More mighty fine detective work.
 
2013-03-29 09:02:53 AM  
The Vatican has never confirmed the authenticity of the shroud, but a Vatican researcher in 2009 said that faint writing on the cloth proves it was used to wrap Jesus' body after his crucifixion.

[Inigo_Montoya.jpg]

What did the writing say? For best results, wash in cold water and tumble dry to ensure resurrection?
 
2013-03-29 09:04:51 AM  
Oh Christ. I couln't believe no one was getting the reference, here I'm the one who completely farked up.

i218.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-29 09:05:14 AM  
As a Christian, let me say that the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has no effect whatsoever on my faith.  It may be a total intentional fake.  It may be the real shroud of Jesus.

It would make sense that someone kept his shroud.  Even if he didn't rise from the dead, someone may have taken his shroud.  It may have the image on it from divine zapping power, or it may be natural, or it may be fake.

I've never quite understood how proving it wasn't from Jesus's time disproves Christianity or how proving it was from Jesus's time does prove Christianity.

It's a fascinating artifact, but it has no theological implications.
 
2013-03-29 09:05:16 AM  
www.dreamstime.com

Happy Gouda Friday
 
2013-03-29 09:07:16 AM  

PainInTheASP: Jesus was an alien.*


John 18:36:  Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."



*Yup


Like to hear a song about it? Here it go.

 
2013-03-29 09:08:37 AM  
so its the world's oldest tie dyed shirt.

/big deal
 
2013-03-29 09:08:53 AM  
It's not like they crucified thousands of other people, only jesus could have left that wound pattern... oh wait
 
2013-03-29 09:09:20 AM  

olddinosaur: Here's what's wrong with the Shroud:

1. The man is tall and thin, most men of the times had short stocky physiques;

2. His face is oval and elongate, most men of that place and time had round wide faces;

3. The nose is straight and long, most men of that place had short wide noses;

4. He has a high square forehead and a high hairline, most men of that place had a low hairline and rounded forehead;

5. He wears his hair shoulder length, most men of that place and time wore their hair about 1" long at most;

6. He wears a long beard, and most men of that place and time cropped their beards shorter than their hair, 1/2" on average;

7. Both the hair and the beard are straight, most men of that place and time had curly hair;

8. The forearms are abnormally long in proportion to the rest of the body, but the forelegs are normal in size, and it is nowhere written that Jesus suffered any such deformity;

9.  The reverse view of the body is 1/2" inch longer than the front view, and curvature of the cloth does not seem to account for this inconsistency.

Everyone who wrote about Jesus considered him important, and no one mentions anywhere that he looked any different from the common men of his place and time.  When the Romans came to take him, they had to ask who he was, which proves it even more conclusively.  Jesus did not look any different from the average man of his place and time, the facts do not support any other conclusion.


Another Fun Fact, until the shroud was "Discovered" in the 1300s Jesus was usually depicted as you described above, afterwards, the now traditional image of Jesus became the norm.

/Wait does that mean the artist of the shroud was the worlds first internet troll?
 
2013-03-29 09:09:34 AM  
Wishful thinking
 
2013-03-29 09:10:57 AM  

WanPhat: As a Christian, let me say that the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has no effect whatsoever on my faith.  It may be a total intentional fake.  It may be the real shroud of Jesus.

It would make sense that someone kept his shroud.  Even if he didn't rise from the dead, someone may have taken his shroud.  It may have the image on it from divine zapping power, or it may be natural, or it may be fake.

I've never quite understood how proving it wasn't from Jesus's time disproves Christianity or how proving it was from Jesus's time does prove Christianity.

It's a fascinating artifact, but it has no theological implications.


It's the same reason that Young Earth Creationists employ pseudoscience to support their beliefs.  It's not enough that YOU believe in Christianity.  It's important to them that EVERYBODY believes in Christianity.  Even us skeptical atheist types who demand silly things like evidence....and facts.

When faith is not enough, make up shiat.
 
2013-03-29 09:11:27 AM  
What Fox News meant to say is that a new study from the department of confirmation bias confirms it is the shroud of Jesus. And never mind all the evidence to the contrary.
 
2013-03-29 09:11:51 AM  

somedude210: Possibly, I mean we've shown just in the last 8 years that humans tend to lack any public empathy and compassion, so maybe he was alien to this world

...or maybe Americans are just aliens to this world

/study it out


For your consideration:

All of the "Abrahamic" faiths, (Christians, Jewish, Muslims,) harken back to the same god. Is it any wonder we're a war-like people? The overwhelming majority of human beings actually worship a deity less responsible than your average teenage babysitter. If you're of the Christian or Jewish variety, then you believe that your god actually set the rules up so that his own son would have to be murdered in a savage ritual for human beings to overcome the curse he collectively bestowed upon them for the results of his own negligence. For it was he, according to your holy texts that allowed an agent of evil into paradise in the first place. it was he who dictated the savage, cruel terms and conditions for "salvation". If you're a Muslim, then it was he who cursed 72 virgins with having to tolerate your sandy ass for eternity for the great service involving your typical murderous religion-based savagery.

Religion: it's really just for savages.
 
2013-03-29 09:12:20 AM  

kronicfeld: The Vatican has never confirmed the authenticity of the shroud

Because that is something that the Vatican somehow has the authority to do?


Well given as it does belong to them and they do kinda claim to be the spokespeople for its alleged former owner, you might expect them to weigh in.   However to their credit the Vatican takes a very "mythbusters" approach to any claims of miracluous occurances, sacred relics, or appearances of celestial celebrities on household objects
 
2013-03-29 09:13:56 AM  

flynn80: It's not like they crucified thousands of other people, only jesus could have left that wound pattern... oh wait


Didn't the Saudis do one recently?
 
2013-03-29 09:14:06 AM  
Of course it exists.  I used to work in sales with a guy named Jesus.  He was a cool guy, and he wore a shroud-like garment when it got cold outside.

Why is this so hard for people to beleive?
 
2013-03-29 09:14:13 AM  

Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.


No. Because if it was painted, it wouldn't render a 3d image when scanned.

2.bp.blogspot.com

Those shrouds weren't pressed down like your supposition requires.
 
2013-03-29 09:15:03 AM  
No one has made a forgery that renders a 3D image.
 
2013-03-29 09:15:48 AM  

captainstudd: Isn't that blood on the forehead? Can we get some DNA and impregnate someone with a baby Jesus? We can actually play god.


For he is the KWISATZ HADERACH!
 
2013-03-29 09:16:04 AM  

qsblues: Of course it exists.  I used to work in sales with a guy named Jesus.  He was a cool guy, and he wore a shroud-like garment when it got cold outside.

Why is this so hard for people to beleive?


Because most people on Fark don't have jobs.
 
2013-03-29 09:16:36 AM  
Now, I'm pretty sure it's a hoax.  I mean, apparently it's more than just the age at play here.

But, you know.  People still have locks of Elvis'es hair.  People collect stuff relating to celebrities and hoard it.  Just say'in.
 
2013-03-29 09:17:23 AM  
Fox = 'nuff said.

By that I mean "Shut up Fox."
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-29 09:17:44 AM  
kronicfeld:
Because that is something that the Vatican somehow has the authority to do?

Well, it seems to think it somehow has authority over people's genitalia, even if they aren't catholic.

I'm sure that they could give themselves authority over that.
 
2013-03-29 09:18:24 AM  

Sgygus: Fanti told the paper he rejects the conclusion of carbon dating tests conducted in 1988 that bolstered the theory the shroud was made in the 13th or 14th century in a medieval forgery.

Wanting to believe doesn't make it true.


well there IS  a bit of a problem trying to carbon-date the shorud being as how A) its been repaired a gew times in its exitence using then-contemporary materials  and B) It was very nearly destoryed in a fire that burned the church holding it to the ground, thus depositing enough soot on it to make radio-carbon dating essentially useless.   Personally its a big "meh" for me,  even if it was contemporaneous with the historical existance of Jesus it still proves absolutely nothing, and even if you could conclusively prov it was once wrapped around the real Jesus' body, so what?  Christianity's validity or lack there of should be determined by what you think of the things Jesus had to say, not the existence of absence of "woo-wo" relics
 
2013-03-29 09:18:35 AM  
Seriously people. Carbon dating has a resolution of around 5,000 years. Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them.
 
2013-03-29 09:19:29 AM  

kronicfeld: The Vatican has never confirmed the authenticity of the shroud

Because that is something that the Vatican somehow has the authority to do?


On matters of Catholic faith, yes. Don't they also possess it? A museum that owns a painting is usually considered the authority on whether that painting is genuine.
 
2013-03-29 09:20:31 AM  

Magorn: Sgygus: Fanti told the paper he rejects the conclusion of carbon dating tests conducted in 1988 that bolstered the theory the shroud was made in the 13th or 14th century in a medieval forgery.

Wanting to believe doesn't make it true.

well there IS  a bit of a problem trying to carbon-date the shorud being as how A) its been repaired a gew times in its exitence using then-contemporary materials  and B) It was very nearly destoryed in a fire that burned the church holding it to the ground, thus depositing enough soot on it to make radio-carbon dating essentially useless.   Personally its a big "meh" for me,  even if it was contemporaneous with the historical existance of Jesus it still proves absolutely nothing, and even if you could conclusively prov it was once wrapped around the real Jesus' body, so what?  Christianity's validity or lack there of should be determined by what you think of the things Jesus had to say, not the existence of absence of "woo-wo" relics


Even if it was real and authenticated, the shroud just proves that he lived and died. It doesn't prove he respawned.
 
2013-03-29 09:21:14 AM  

PainInTheASP: Jesus was an alien.


That's "undocumented terrestrial".
 
2013-03-29 09:21:33 AM  

olddinosaur: Everyone who wrote about Jesus considered him important, and no one mentions anywhere that he looked any different from the common men of his place and time.  When the Romans came to take him, they had to ask who he was, which proves it even more conclusively.  Jesus did not look any different from the average man of his place and time, the facts do not support any other conclusion.


1.bp.blogspot.com


1050-1100.
The oldest known crucifix in Denmark, (maybe all of Northern Europe, not sure and can't be bothered to find out).

Actual crown, good abs and if you look closely you can see his defiant look. Thought you might like it.

/picked off some forum somewhere
//that dude is recognizeable
 
2013-03-29 09:22:53 AM  

rpm: Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.

Possibly not painted.


Associating it with DaVinci seems as fanciful as associating it with Jesus to me.   Some research I've read suggests that you could also recreate the effect of the shroud by heating a bronze casting to about 900 degrees in a oven and then wrapping the linen around it.
 
2013-03-29 09:23:24 AM  

JasonOfOrillia: Those results, Fanti said, were "false" because of laboratory contamination, the Telegraph reported.

Sounds legit.


It was contaminated.
 
rpm
2013-03-29 09:23:26 AM  

s2s2s2: No one has made a forgery that renders a 3D image.


Disapproves
www.biography.com
 
2013-03-29 09:25:29 AM  

rpm: s2s2s2: No one has made a forgery that renders a 3D image.

Disapproves
[www.biography.com image 402x402]


Picture is not a citation unless it is of a 3D rendering he did, or that someone else reproduced using his techniques.
 
2013-03-29 09:27:36 AM  
Fanti, a Catholic, told the Telegraph that the results were based on 15 years of research on fibers taken from the cloth, which were subjected to radiation intensity tests.

Fanti told the paper he rejects the conclusion of carbon dating tests conducted in 1988 that bolstered the theory the shroud was made in the 13th or 14th century in a medieval forgery.


Carbon dating, 10 minutes... chance of contamination, minimal.

Putzing around with samples for 15 years, change of contamination, Danger Will Robinson, Danger.
 
2013-03-29 09:28:38 AM  

Close2TheEdge: Yeah, and this might be true too.  But I doubt it.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 409x384]


Wow...  Bat Boy.  They've been using him since the early/mid 80's.  Wouldn't he be in his 40's by now?
 
2013-03-29 09:28:52 AM  
Doesn't the Urantia book have something to say about this?
 
2013-03-29 09:29:02 AM  

Jon iz teh kewl: jesus or republican jesus??


American Jesus
 
rpm
2013-03-29 09:29:18 AM  

malfist: Seriously people. Carbon dating has a resolution of around 5,000 years. Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them.


You dropped a 0. It's accurate to better than 16 years at 5000 years old.
 
2013-03-29 09:31:30 AM  

abhorrent1: Didn't he die the year before 1 A.D.? So if it's real it would be from that year, no?


It's going to be hilarious in here when people start making fun of you for the dumbest post in this thread. Just wait!

malfist: Seriously people. Carbon dating has a resolution of around 5,000 years. Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them.


...never mind.
 
2013-03-29 09:31:46 AM  

captainstudd: Isn't that blood on the forehead? Can we get some DNA and impregnate someone with a baby Jesus? We can actually play god.


Yeah, but cloned baby Jesus would surely have the mark of the beast. Also, DNA has a shelf life.
 
2013-03-29 09:34:54 AM  
I bought a finger bone from a Black Adder fans that is from Christ.  If it dates between 280 B.C. and A.D. 220, well, that just cinches it.
 
2013-03-29 09:36:46 AM  
You know it is a fake because he isn't holding any guns.
 
2013-03-29 09:37:09 AM  

Big_Fat_Liar: I bought a finger bone from a Black Adder fans that is from Christ.  If it dates between 280 B.C. and A.D. 220, well, that just cinches it.


What better way to show your love on St Valentine's day than with a piece of the Saint himself.
 
2013-03-29 09:42:09 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: Must have been a study last month proving it was fake. This back and forth has been going on for decades now.


I thought this subject had been laid to rest, but I see it's been revived.  It must be Jesus.
 
2013-03-29 09:42:45 AM  
Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.
 
2013-03-29 09:45:10 AM  

rpm: malfist: Seriously people. Carbon dating has a resolution of around 5,000 years. Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them.

You dropped a 0. It's accurate to better than 16 years at 5000 years old.


I didn't say it was accurate to 5,000 years. I said carbon dating has a resolution of 5000 years. Technically, it has a resolution of 5,730 years, the halflife of carbon-14. Carbon dating is unlikely to be even close to accurate unless the item is >10K years old.
 
2013-03-29 09:46:39 AM  

captainstudd: Isn't that blood on the forehead? Can we get some DNA and impregnate someone with a baby Jesus? We can actually play god.


There's a movie coming out with Christopher Walken with that plot.
 
2013-03-29 09:49:46 AM  

s2s2s2: PainInTheASP: Jesus was an alien.*

John 18:36:  Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."

*Yup
Like to hear a song about it? Here it go.



Jesus was a Capricorn. There's a song about that, too.
 
2013-03-29 09:52:59 AM  

malfist: rpm: malfist: Seriously people. Carbon dating has a resolution of around 5,000 years. Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them.

You dropped a 0. It's accurate to better than 16 years at 5000 years old.

I didn't say it was accurate to 5,000 years. I said carbon dating has a resolution of 5000 years. Technically, it has a resolution of 5,730 years, the halflife of carbon-14. Carbon dating is unlikely to be even close to accurate unless the item is >10K years old.


You said it was accurate to 2000 years by stating "Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them."

This is off by two orders of magnitutde.
 
rpm
2013-03-29 09:53:57 AM  

malfist: I didn't say it was accurate to 5,000 years. I said carbon dating has a resolution of 5000 years. Technically, it has a resolution of 5,730 years, the halflife of carbon-14. Carbon dating is unlikely to be even close to accurate unless the item is >10K years old.


Have you looked at the calibration curve? It's accurate with 16 years at 6000 years old. The resolution is dependent on how accurately you measure the ratios, it's independent of the half-life. (well, sorta. it is dependent on the uncertainty in the half-life).
 
2013-03-29 09:57:21 AM  

give me doughnuts: malfist: rpm: malfist: Seriously people. Carbon dating has a resolution of around 5,000 years. Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them.

You dropped a 0. It's accurate to better than 16 years at 5000 years old.

I didn't say it was accurate to 5,000 years. I said carbon dating has a resolution of 5000 years. Technically, it has a resolution of 5,730 years, the halflife of carbon-14. Carbon dating is unlikely to be even close to accurate unless the item is >10K years old.

You said it was accurate to 2000 years by stating "Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them."

This is off by two orders of magnitutde.


I did not say it was accurate to 2000 years, I said samples that were taken 2000 years apart would be equal in apparent age. Which is true, even buy your definition of accuracy.
 
2013-03-29 09:58:46 AM  

kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.



So if you are the Christ
Yes the great Jesus Christ
Prove to me that you're no fool
Walk across my swimming pool
If you do that for me
Then I'll let you go free
C'mon King of the Jews

I only ask the things I'd ask any superstar
What is it that you have got
That puts you where you are? Oh, ho ho
I am waiting
Yes I'm a captive fan
I'm dying to be shown
That you are not just any man
 
2013-03-29 10:03:47 AM  

kid_icarus: This. Even if it does date back to Jesus's time, that doesn't mean it was Jesus's burial shroud..


Not to mention that the SOT doesn't match the description of the shroud in the Bible. You might think that Christians would have a problem with this.
But you would be wrong.
 
rpm
2013-03-29 10:03:54 AM  

malfist: I did not say it was accurate to 2000 years, I said samples that were taken 2000 years apart would be equal in apparent age. Which is true, even buy your definition of accuracy.


*headdesk* LOOK AT THE GODDAMN CALIBRATION CURVE
 
2013-03-29 10:06:00 AM  
But is it Raptor Jesus?

proudtobeafilthyliberalscum.com
 
2013-03-29 10:06:15 AM  
FFS just LOOK at the thing. Any non-moran can see it's not real.
 
2013-03-29 10:10:26 AM  

malfist: rpm: malfist: Seriously people. Carbon dating has a resolution of around 5,000 years. Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them.

You dropped a 0. It's accurate to better than 16 years at 5000 years old.

I didn't say it was accurate to 5,000 years. I said carbon dating has a resolution of 5000 years. Technically, it has a resolution of 5,730 years, the halflife of carbon-14. Carbon dating is unlikely to be even close to accurate unless the item is >10K years old.


Wow. You quite literally have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?

I hope that somebody with more patience than I will come along and explain it to you, starting with what the word "resolution" means. As you backpedal furiously here, though, don't forget that you are on record as saying, and I quote, "Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them". Like, for example, the Dead Sea Scrolls, many of which span the period from right before to right after 1AD?

Unless, of course, it's your position that every lab that has ever tested the scrolls, and every historian, theologian, or archaeologist who has ever relied on their tests doesn't understand carbon dating the way you do. Is that your theory?

Perhaps you are unaware that carbon dating is so sensitive that to get a really accurate date range, you have to calibrate against the small natural fluctuations in atmospheric C14 levels in different times and places?

Look, the smart thing to do at this point is to say "Crap, I confused carbon dating with something else entirely. I shouldn't post before coffee." The dumb thing to say is "NO!!! I'm RIGHT!!!! And every scientist on the planet, and every paper every published using carbon dating is WRONG!!!". And the embarrassing thing to say is "Those words that I posted, they really don't mean what they obviously mean."


Smart, dumb, embarrassing: your choice.
 
2013-03-29 10:12:32 AM  
Could you 3D print Jesus?
 
2013-03-29 10:13:07 AM  
Close2TheEdge: It's the same reason that Young Earth Creationists  Climate Change Alarmists employ pseudoscience to support their beliefs.

/FTFF (Fixed That For Fark)

//Because sometimes you feel like a troll.
 
2013-03-29 10:20:05 AM  

s2s2s2: Picture is not a citation unless it is of a 3D rendering he did, or that someone else reproduced using his techniques.


There is someone that's made a reproduction that provides 3D data like the original. And all it takes is a camera obscura and some photosensitive chemicals to brush on the fabric before exposing it. Turns out, ole Leonardo would've had knowledge of both things. And access to men who look really really Italian, like Jesus does on the shroud.
 
rpm
2013-03-29 10:22:16 AM  

give me doughnuts: This is off by two orders of magnitutde.


And that's if you're being generous.

12 AD: 10 +/- 10
2012 AD: 2010 +/- 5

So things 2000 years apart would show as AT WORST 2015 years apart. Not the same, 2015 years apart. That's over 3 orders of magnitude wrong.
 
2013-03-29 10:23:42 AM  

vygramul: kronicfeld: The Vatican has never confirmed the authenticity of the shroud

Because that is something that the Vatican somehow has the authority to do?

On matters of Catholic faith, yes. Don't they also possess it? A museum that owns a painting is usually considered the authority on whether that painting is genuine.


A museum MAY be an authority on a painting they possess or exhibit and it is expected of them that they will be. But that is entirely reliant on well-documented provenance of the piece - which does not exist in the case of the Shroud. Museums do not come by knowledge magically, just because they exhibit a piece and, in fact, museums have been known to discover hoaxes and counterfeits in their collections long after first exhibiting them as genuine.

It is frequently the case that a museum relies on outside experts, too.
 
2013-03-29 10:25:53 AM  
Heh, listening to last nights Coast to Coast, and they're also trotting out the Shroud of Turin for Easter.

Who says the Vatican doesn't still have far reaching influence.
 
2013-03-29 10:27:34 AM  
farm4.static.flickr.com

The truth.  It's out there.  It couldn't be on the innertubes if it wasn't.
 
2013-03-29 10:30:48 AM  

WhyteRaven74: There is someone


Who? Please show their work.
 
2013-03-29 10:31:18 AM  

czetie: malfist: rpm: malfist: Seriously people. Carbon dating has a resolution of around 5,000 years. Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them.

You dropped a 0. It's accurate to better than 16 years at 5000 years old.

I didn't say it was accurate to 5,000 years. I said carbon dating has a resolution of 5000 years. Technically, it has a resolution of 5,730 years, the halflife of carbon-14. Carbon dating is unlikely to be even close to accurate unless the item is >10K years old.

Wow. You quite literally have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?

I hope that somebody with more patience than I will come along and explain it to you, starting with what the word "resolution" means. As you backpedal furiously here, though, don't forget that you are on record as saying, and I quote, "Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them". Like, for example, the Dead Sea Scrolls, many of which span the period from right before to right after 1AD?

Unless, of course, it's your position that every lab that has ever tested the scrolls, and every historian, theologian, or archaeologist who has ever relied on their tests doesn't understand carbon dating the way you do. Is that your theory?

Perhaps you are unaware that carbon dating is so sensitive that to get a really accurate date range, you have to calibrate against the small natural fluctuations in atmospheric C14 levels in different times and places?

Look, the smart thing to do at this point is to say "Crap, I confused carbon dating with something else entirely. I shouldn't post before coffee." The dumb thing to say is "NO!!! I'm RIGHT!!!! And every scientist on the planet, and every paper every published using carbon dating is WRONG!!!". And the embarrassing thing to say is "Those words that I posted, they really don't mean what they obviously mean."


Smart, dumb, embarrassing: your choice.


Why don't you go peddle your death somewhere else.    Music has taught the rest of the world this carbon 14 you are so fond of is deadly for 10,000 years and here you are suggesting we should use it in our clocks.

(I get my entire world view from musicians - they smarter than the rest)
 
2013-03-29 10:35:24 AM  
It looks real.
ih3.redbubble.net
 
2013-03-29 10:41:13 AM  
Darn.  For a second, I thought it was going to be about  this Túrin.

/never let me on this website before I've had my coffee
 
2013-03-29 10:42:43 AM  

NEPAman: Close2TheEdge: It's the same reason that Young Earth Creationists  and  Climate Change Alarmists shills for the fossil fuel industry employ pseudoscience to support their beliefs.

/FTFF (Fixed That For Fark)

//Because sometimes you feel like a troll.

FTFY -  Because astroturfing is uncool.

 
2013-03-29 10:44:20 AM  
users.stargate.net
 
2013-03-29 10:49:38 AM  

Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.


3.bp.blogspot.com
Not sure about that, this guy might be a fit.
 
2013-03-29 10:49:44 AM  
Why does anybody care about the shroud of Turin? Even if it was proven to have been made on the exact date of Jesus's supposed death it doesn't mean that the person it was made with was supernatural. It's like if you proved that the Romans crucified some guy on that day, well no shiat they crucified lots of people. That doesn't mean that any of them were the son of god. Some stained cloth is not proof of anything other than dirt.
 
2013-03-29 10:50:34 AM  

kronicfeld: The Vatican has never confirmed the authenticity of the shroud

Because that is something that the Vatican somehow has the authority to do?


Relics of he founder of their church are kind of under their baliwick.
 
2013-03-29 10:50:58 AM  

The Pope of Manwich Village: [users.stargate.net image 800x1066]


Corner water damage Jesus is watching you mastrubate.
 
2013-03-29 10:58:46 AM  
Jesus! Jeee-susJessus,
King of the wild frontier!
 
2013-03-29 10:59:31 AM  

kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.


Well, he did tie his ass to a tree, and then walk 40 miles into town...

/rimshot/
 
2013-03-29 11:02:11 AM  

kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.


You realize miracles can't be proved? That's why they're called miracles. It wouldn't be a miracle if there were a perfectly rational explanation. It would simply be science. Poof. Miracle=science?
 
2013-03-29 11:03:37 AM  

I_C_Weener: kronicfeld: The Vatican has never confirmed the authenticity of the shroud

Because that is something that the Vatican somehow has the authority to do?

Relics of he founder of their church are kind of under their baliwick.


so is protecting pedophiliacs and spreading AIDs due to anti-condom policies, so excuse me if I don't think they are entirely honest about stuff.
 
2013-03-29 11:06:47 AM  
commonsenseatheism.com
It. Doesn't. (Much.) Matter.
 
2013-03-29 11:07:29 AM  

jjwars1: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

You realize miracles can't be proved? That's why they're called miracles. It wouldn't be a miracle if there were a perfectly rational explanation. It would simply be science. Poof. Miracle=science?


I guess I should have been more specific. Prove he walked on water or turned water into wine and I might pay attention.
 
2013-03-29 11:11:20 AM  
Why do people of "faith" require all of this "proof"?
 
2013-03-29 11:14:09 AM  
There is only one way to prove its real or not.  Take a fiber with DNA on it, and clone him.


If the Catholic Church has him killed off, you'll know it was a fake.
 
2013-03-29 11:14:28 AM  

czetie: malfist: rpm: malfist: Seriously people. Carbon dating has a resolution of around 5,000 years. Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them.

You dropped a 0. It's accurate to better than 16 years at 5000 years old.

I didn't say it was accurate to 5,000 years. I said carbon dating has a resolution of 5000 years. Technically, it has a resolution of 5,730 years, the halflife of carbon-14. Carbon dating is unlikely to be even close to accurate unless the item is >10K years old.

Wow. You quite literally have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?

I hope that somebody with more patience than I will come along and explain it to you, starting with what the word "resolution" means. As you backpedal furiously here, though, don't forget that you are on record as saying, and I quote, "Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them". Like, for example, the Dead Sea Scrolls, many of which span the period from right before to right after 1AD?

Unless, of course, it's your position that every lab that has ever tested the scrolls, and every historian, theologian, or archaeologist who has ever relied on their tests doesn't understand carbon dating the way you do. Is that your theory?

Perhaps you are unaware that carbon dating is so sensitive that to get a really accurate date range, you have to calibrate against the small natural fluctuations in atmospheric C14 levels in different times and places?

Look, the smart thing to do at this point is to say "Crap, I confused carbon dating with something else entirely. I shouldn't post before coffee." The dumb thing to say is "NO!!! I'm RIGHT!!!! And every scientist on the planet, and every paper every published using carbon dating is WRONG!!!". And the embarrassing thing to say is "Those words that I posted, they really don't mean what they obviously mean."


Smart, dumb, embarrassing: your choice.


THIS
 
2013-03-29 11:28:40 AM  

Ika7734: I_C_Weener: kronicfeld: The Vatican has never confirmed the authenticity of the shroud

Because that is something that the Vatican somehow has the authority to do?

Relics of he founder of their church are kind of under their baliwick.

so is protecting pedophiliacs and spreading AIDs due to anti-condom policies, so excuse me if I don't think they are entirely honest about stuff.


Point of the thread over here.   Your post.................................................................. ...........over here.
 
2013-03-29 11:30:56 AM  
Not to defend FOX partially but the shroud's going to be in the news regardless since Benedict apparently signed off on a new media deal as a parting gift. It's possible FOX mentions that but I'm not clicking the link.
 
2013-03-29 11:34:38 AM  
To me the shroud of Turin has always looked more like fecal stains on a piece of cloth.

If Jesus were perfect he would have used the three seashells instead of his shroud.
 
2013-03-29 11:38:07 AM  
www.religioustolerance.org

Dude's beard looked like a Brillo Pad
 
2013-03-29 11:41:07 AM  
 
2013-03-29 11:42:19 AM  
white Jesus or black Jesus?
 
rpm
2013-03-29 11:48:40 AM  

jjwars1: You realize miracles can't be proved? That's why they're called miracles. It wouldn't be a miracle if there were a perfectly rational explanation. It would simply be science. Poof. Miracle=science?


You realize that miracles can be observed, right? That puts them under science. If they aren't observable, they didn't happen. If they did happen, they can be analyzed.
 
2013-03-29 11:53:13 AM  

Spartapuss: Not to defend FOX partially but the shroud's going to be in the news regardless since Benedict apparently signed off on a new media deal as a parting gift. It's possible FOX mentions that but I'm not clicking the link.


The Fox piece doesn't mention a new media deal.  It links to this Telegraph story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9958678/Turin -S hroud-is-not-a-medieval-forgery.html

I've wondered what makes people submit 2nd and 3rd hand articles instead of the original source - especially when it comes to Huffpo or Fox articles.  Why use a source a good number of people are going to find laughable when there is an obvious better/original one?  (I guess it's just to give people like me something to biatch about)
 
2013-03-29 11:54:43 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: Must have been a study last month proving it was fake. This back and forth has been going on for decades now.


Here is the relevant part: "The research linking the shroud to between 280 B.C. and A.D. 220 was published in book by Giulio Fanti..."

There's always a commercial book to accompany such revelations.  This one's by Rizzoli, purveyors of the finest in coffee-table art books. Ooh! Pretty pictures!

It's all about the Je$u$.
 
2013-03-29 11:55:42 AM  

malfist: give me doughnuts: malfist: rpm: malfist: Seriously people. Carbon dating has a resolution of around 5,000 years. Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them.

You dropped a 0. It's accurate to better than 16 years at 5000 years old.

I didn't say it was accurate to 5,000 years. I said carbon dating has a resolution of 5000 years. Technically, it has a resolution of 5,730 years, the halflife of carbon-14. Carbon dating is unlikely to be even close to accurate unless the item is >10K years old.

You said it was accurate to 2000 years by stating "Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them."

This is off by two orders of magnitutde.

I did not say it was accurate to 2000 years, I said samples that were taken 2000 years apart would be equal in apparent age. Which is true, even buy your definition of accuracy.


Please note the bolded, embiggened, and underlined words.
 
2013-03-29 12:02:07 PM  

zarberg: [www.religioustolerance.org image 220x242]

Dude's beard looked like a Brillo Pad


He looks really confused.
 
2013-03-29 12:05:21 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.

This. The geometry of the face alone makes it a fake. I don't know why people are still arguing for authenticity.


i457.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-29 12:05:52 PM  

kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.


rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.
 
2013-03-29 12:09:03 PM  
Somebody in this thread either does not understand the English language, does not understand radiocarbon dating, or both.


/going with both.
 
2013-03-29 12:10:59 PM  

colon_pow: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.


Yet no one who saw him wrote about it. The gospels weren't written until 70 years after his supposed resurrection.

Strange no contemparies of Jesus thought to write about it.
 
2013-03-29 12:14:16 PM  
So it's still shrouded in mystery.
 
2013-03-29 12:16:09 PM  
You realize the radio carbon dating was done to a piece of the shroud that was attached to the original and it was not a piece of the original.
 
rpm
2013-03-29 12:16:37 PM  

kobrakai: I guess I should have been more specific. Prove he walked on water or turned water into wine and I might pay attention.


Step 1: Prove he existed
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Prophet!
 
2013-03-29 12:19:23 PM  

CleanAndPure: colon_pow: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

Yet no one who saw him wrote about it. The gospels weren't written until 70 years after his supposed resurrection.

Strange no contemparies of Jesus thought to write about it.


So many people rose from the dead back then that it wasn't really noteworthy...see also, great floods.
 
2013-03-29 12:24:16 PM  

Jekylman: zarberg: [www.religioustolerance.org image 220x242]

Dude's beard looked like a Brillo Pad

He looks really confused.


Confused Jesus rolled D100 for your sins.

(and on a 51-75 attacks himself for 1d8+str damage)
 
2013-03-29 12:26:14 PM  
Vatican researcher in 2009 said that faint writing on the cloth proves it was used to wrap Jesus' body after his crucifixion.

Jesus wuz here
 
2013-03-29 12:29:45 PM  
If the shroud of turin was used on Jesus, then it proves He didn't resurrect since the image left on it is from decomposition.
 
2013-03-29 12:29:59 PM  

rpm: jjwars1: You realize miracles can't be proved? That's why they're called miracles. It wouldn't be a miracle if there were a perfectly rational explanation. It would simply be science. Poof. Miracle=science?

You realize that miracles can be observed, right? That puts them under science. If they aren't observable, they didn't happen. If they did happen, they can be analyzed.


Yes.  If you observe and analyze a "miracle" you'll find either A: The miracle can't be explained, or B. Science proves how the miracle occurred in which case it isn't a miracle- it's just science.
 
2013-03-29 12:30:51 PM  

0Icky0: kid_icarus: This. Even if it does date back to Jesus's time, that doesn't mean it was Jesus's burial shroud..

Not to mention that the SOT doesn't match the description of the shroud in the Bible. You might think that Christians would have a problem with this.
But you would be wrong.


For real. It's a piece of friggin cloth with the outline of what renaissance painters would later decide White Jesus looks like on it. I would be more convinced if it had "Jeus Wuz Here!" scrawled on the edge with a sharpie.
 
2013-03-29 12:31:50 PM  
OK.....FOX News, eh?  I don't even know how this is a debate anywhere.  The NT talks about the Romans putting this dude in a tomb so his friends could not give him a proper burial.  I guess this is why they just did not dump him in a pit with the rest of the dead criminals that the Romans just threw in there if family members did not claim.  Either way, cremation was standard "burial" prcocedure at the time in Rome specifically because they did not want people desecrating their bodies after they died.  Either way, this dude would not have had a shroud or placed in a tomb.  He would either have been dumped in a pit with other rotting corpses or cremated so nobody could get to his body.  Nevermind how did that big clump of blood that surely would have been dried up by the time he was shrouded get on the shroud.  Nevermind the romans taking the time to place the shroud perfectly on Jesus' face and body very tightly to get that imagery onto it.
 
2013-03-29 12:33:53 PM  
Step 1)  Peer reviewed paper shows Shroud of Turin can't possible be real.

Step 2) Fans of the Shroud find a "scientist" who will say it is real. Usually the words "peer reviewed" are not used during this step.

Step 3) Go to step 1

This thing is about as debunked as possible. The carbon dating says the fabric isn't old enough. The pollen captured in the fabric is from  the wrong region. etc. . .

files.abovetopsecret.com
 
rpm
2013-03-29 12:35:54 PM  

jjwars1: rpm: jjwars1: You realize miracles can't be proved? That's why they're called miracles. It wouldn't be a miracle if there were a perfectly rational explanation. It would simply be science. Poof. Miracle=science?

You realize that miracles can be observed, right? That puts them under science. If they aren't observable, they didn't happen. If they did happen, they can be analyzed.

Yes.  If you observe and analyze a "miracle" you'll find either A: The miracle can't be explained, or B. Science proves how the miracle occurred in which case it isn't a miracle- it's just science.


And the thing about (A) is it's "Can't be explained yet", you still need to show goddidit in that case, just saying you don't know now doesn't mean you can't know, nor does it mean your alternate explanation is correct.
 
2013-03-29 12:36:22 PM  
www.religioustolerance.org

img69.imageshack.us

Hail Ragnar! and hail Ragnar's beard!
 
2013-03-29 12:37:13 PM  
New research from the Institute of Findings We Were Hoping For suggest this isn't a hoax.
 
2013-03-29 12:37:16 PM  

jjwars1: rpm: jjwars1: You realize miracles can't be proved? That's why they're called miracles. It wouldn't be a miracle if there were a perfectly rational explanation. It would simply be science. Poof. Miracle=science?

You realize that miracles can be observed, right? That puts them under science. If they aren't observable, they didn't happen. If they did happen, they can be analyzed.

Yes.  If you observe and analyze a "miracle" you'll find either A: The miracle can't be explained, or B. Science proves how the miracle occurred in which case it isn't a miracle- it's just science.


So what you're saying is there's no such thing as a miracle.
 
2013-03-29 12:37:44 PM  

StashMonster: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/another_easter_for_the_tu r in_shroud/


huzzah for you, sir!! i didn't even bother reading the fox news article; joe nickell has debunked the shroud so many times.

I_C_Weener: The Pope of Manwich Village: [users.stargate.net image 800x1066]

Corner water damage Jesus is watching you mastrubate.


this made me laugh waaaay to hard.
 
2013-03-29 12:38:17 PM  
It's a Fanti see.
 
2013-03-29 12:40:16 PM  

colon_pow: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.


Meh. More eyewitnesses have seen Bigfoot, and he ain't real either.
 
2013-03-29 12:42:47 PM  

s2s2s2: Who? Please show their work.


His name is Nicholas Allen, and here you go http://www.reviewofreligions.org/385/is-the-shroud-of-turin-a-medieva l -photograph-a-critical-examination-of-the-theory/

And here's the image he made

www.reviewofreligions.org

Nothing but a camera obscura, a piece of cloth and some photosensitive chemicals
 
2013-03-29 12:43:33 PM  

s2s2s2: JasonOfOrillia: Those results, Fanti said, were "false" because of laboratory contamination, the Telegraph reported.

Sounds legit.

It was contaminated.



Did you read your link?

Out of the scientists listed under the contamination section, a few said it might have been contaminated, listing unusual and hypothetical circumstances. Others said they had experimental results indicating contamination, but were later shown to have been lying and were "arrested in 1997 on American soil under allegations of accepting bribes by magazine editors to produce manufactured evidence and false reports"?

Do you have anything to back up your flat statement that "it was contaminated"? At best, your link supports "it may, possibly, hypothetically have been contaminated."
 
2013-03-29 12:43:38 PM  

s2s2s2: Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.

No. Because if it was painted, it wouldn't render a 3d image when scanned.

Those shrouds weren't pressed down like your supposition requires.


The shroud could have been forged by draping it over pigment applied to a person's face, which would deposit varying levels of pigment in proportion to the "elevation" of each facial feature. Scans of other objects can exhibit "3D" characteristics when there's a correlation between depth and dark/light value:

http://gizapyramid.com/LECTURE-SHROUD3.htm

Doesn't require magical resurrection Jesus beams at all. Just means that the pigment on the shroud is proportional to depth, rather than a static depiction of a fixed light source falling on a 3-dimensional face as in most paintings or drawings.
 
rpm
2013-03-29 12:45:04 PM  

kobrakai: jjwars1: rpm: jjwars1: You realize miracles can't be proved? That's why they're called miracles. It wouldn't be a miracle if there were a perfectly rational explanation. It would simply be science. Poof. Miracle=science?

You realize that miracles can be observed, right? That puts them under science. If they aren't observable, they didn't happen. If they did happen, they can be analyzed.

Yes.  If you observe and analyze a "miracle" you'll find either A: The miracle can't be explained, or B. Science proves how the miracle occurred in which case it isn't a miracle- it's just science.

So what you're saying is there's no such thing as a miracle.


yes
 
2013-03-29 12:52:55 PM  

malfist: I didn't say it was accurate to 5,000 years. I said carbon dating has a resolution of 5000 years. Technically, it has a resolution of 5,730 years, the halflife of carbon-14.


Your postings would perhaps carry more authority if you showed the slightest knowledge of how C14 dating works.

Hint: at the this time of year, the sun is up for 12 hours and down for 12 hours. Do sundials only work to a resolution of 12 hours?
 
2013-03-29 12:53:28 PM  

WanPhat: As a Christian, let me say that the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has no effect whatsoever on my faith.  It may be a total intentional fake.  It may be the real shroud of Jesus.

It would make sense that someone kept his shroud.  Even if he didn't rise from the dead, someone may have taken his shroud.  It may have the image on it from divine zapping power, or it may be natural, or it may be fake.

I've never quite understood how proving it wasn't from Jesus's time disproves Christianity or how proving it was from Jesus's time does prove Christianity.

It's a fascinating artifact, but it has no theological implications.


It's not an artifact any more than a Polaroid of a Bible is a religious text. It's a piece of cloth, yes, but I really don't see what makes it any more a "fascinating artifact" than any other piece of cloth from around that time period, which it isn't even from. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I doubt 2000 years from now people are going to "Oooo" and "Ahhhh" over some random bed sheet. Unless, of course, they were trying to use that bed sheet as proof of that money-making religion they made up.
 
2013-03-29 01:02:35 PM  

munko: white Jesus or black Jesus?


i141.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-29 01:12:12 PM  
This pic always makes me smile, and I don't know why. I guess there's something about Toshiro Mifune as Jesus that tickles me!


mattstone.blogs.com
 
2013-03-29 01:14:53 PM  
I blame this guy.

jerryandmartha.com
 
2013-03-29 01:16:00 PM  
i1168.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-29 01:25:05 PM  

Close2TheEdge: WanPhat: As a Christian, let me say that the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has no effect whatsoever on my faith.  It may be a total intentional fake.  It may be the real shroud of Jesus.

It would make sense that someone kept his shroud.  Even if he didn't rise from the dead, someone may have taken his shroud.  It may have the image on it from divine zapping power, or it may be natural, or it may be fake.

I've never quite understood how proving it wasn't from Jesus's time disproves Christianity or how proving it was from Jesus's time does prove Christianity.

It's a fascinating artifact, but it has no theological implications.

It's the same reason that Young Earth Creationists employ pseudoscience to support their beliefs.  It's not enough that YOU believe in Christianity.  It's important to them that EVERYBODY believes in Christianity.  Even us skeptical atheist types who demand silly things like evidence....and facts.

When faith is not enough, make up shiat.


I'm not sure 'believe' is the right word... Christianity is a faith system... It surely exists... You might just choose not to 'subscribe' to it, but that doesn't change the fact that there's a thing out there called Christianity.

And that said, most altheist historians still can admit that Jesus was person who actually existed.   You might not 'believe' he's the son of the God, with magical powers, though that doesn't mean the Shroud of Turin for sure didn't belong the earthy man known as Jesus Christ.
 
2013-03-29 01:31:56 PM  

WanPhat: As a Christian, let me say that the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has no effect whatsoever on my faith.  It may be a total intentional fake.  It may be the real shroud of Jesus.

It would make sense that someone kept his shroud.  Even if he didn't rise from the dead, someone may have taken his shroud.  It may have the image on it from divine zapping power, or it may be natural, or it may be fake.

I've never quite understood how proving it wasn't from Jesus's time disproves Christianity or how proving it was from Jesus's time does prove Christianity.

It's a fascinating artifact, but it has no theological implications.


I am not so sure it would have been that important. We forget for the first few centuries the cult of Jesus was a small offshoot of Judaism, that was persecuted and there wasn't all that many artifacts kept during the period. It was only after Constantine that the artifacts started appearing left, right, and centre. Even if it had been put away, it would have gone into the catecombs for a couple of centuries to rot away.

It the old reliquaries used to convince people it is holy and donate money to the location that keeps it shtick that has been popular for centuries. Now a days however they all turn out to be burnt pieces of toast and dog's arses for some reason.
 
2013-03-29 01:35:17 PM  

s2s2s2: PainInTheASP: Jesus was an alien.*

John 18:36:  Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."

*Yup
Like to hear a song about it? Here it go.


Just like a star:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmZg7tvGN9o
 
2013-03-29 01:45:27 PM  
Here's the thing. Suppose Jesus was a real man. Suppose he had some sort of following and became popular in among a group of people, hypothetically a significant number of people. Suppose he dies. Suppose someone, still caught up in his cult of personality (or on its fringes) decides to manufacture a holy relic to keep his movement inspired (or to turn a quick buck among the followers). In that framework, it would not be inconsistent that the shroud dates back to that period.

It would still not be an indication that Jesus was some sort of god incarnate. In fact it would suggest, though not prove, the opposite. It would also be a more statistically likely scenario.

It would, if it could be proven, invalidate the notion that the shroud is the result of some supernatural occurrence.
 
2013-03-29 01:45:49 PM  

T.rex: Close2TheEdge: WanPhat: As a Christian, let me say that the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has no effect whatsoever on my faith.  It may be a total intentional fake.  It may be the real shroud of Jesus.

It would make sense that someone kept his shroud.  Even if he didn't rise from the dead, someone may have taken his shroud.  It may have the image on it from divine zapping power, or it may be natural, or it may be fake.

I've never quite understood how proving it wasn't from Jesus's time disproves Christianity or how proving it was from Jesus's time does prove Christianity.

It's a fascinating artifact, but it has no theological implications.

It's the same reason that Young Earth Creationists employ pseudoscience to support their beliefs.  It's not enough that YOU believe in Christianity.  It's important to them that EVERYBODY believes in Christianity.  Even us skeptical atheist types who demand silly things like evidence....and facts.

When faith is not enough, make up shiat.

I'm not sure 'believe' is the right word... Christianity is a faith system... It surely exists... You might just choose not to 'subscribe' to it, but that doesn't change the fact that there's a thing out there called Christianity.

And that said, most altheist historians still can admit that Jesus was person who actually existed.   You might not 'believe' he's the son of the God, with magical powers, though that doesn't mean the Shroud of Turin for sure didn't belong the earthy man known as Jesus Christ.


it did not, and if you purport that it did you are either a liar or a fool.  fact is that "historians" have zero evidence that Jesus was real.  They gave up on trying to prove his (non) existence because believers just won't have it any other way other than he DID exist, but the simple truth is that the chances of biblical or even historical Jesus having been flesh and blood are slim to none.  The religion was pieced together from older crap and given a "modern" spin by including the anti-jewish stance stuff about a savior that the Jews didn't believe in.  A few scraps of writing, written decades or centuries later do not prove a damn thing.  I am sorry that religions based on magic and fairy tales are in fact just that, fairy tales, but shiat is what shiat is.  I am also sorry that humans are often so stupid that they will believe in this crap, but once again shiat is what shiat is.

in the year 2013 it is farking SAD that humans are debating whether or not a magical being rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.  MAGIC IS NOT REAL.  Period.  MAGIC WAS NEVER REAL.  Period.
 
2013-03-29 01:48:38 PM  

WanPhat: As a Christian, let me say that the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has no effect whatsoever on my faith.  It may be a total intentional fake.  It may be the real shroud of Jesus.

It would make sense that someone kept his shroud.  Even if he didn't rise from the dead, someone may have taken his shroud.  It may have the image on it from divine zapping power, or it may be natural, or it may be fake.

I've never quite understood how proving it wasn't from Jesus's time disproves Christianity or how proving it was from Jesus's time does prove Christianity.

It's a fascinating artifact, but it has no theological implications.


Well said, although I disagree with the last paragraph IF it is authentic.
 
2013-03-29 01:58:16 PM  

Chach: WanPhat: As a Christian, let me say that the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has no effect whatsoever on my faith.  It may be a total intentional fake.  It may be the real shroud of Jesus.

It would make sense that someone kept his shroud.  Even if he didn't rise from the dead, someone may have taken his shroud.  It may have the image on it from divine zapping power, or it may be natural, or it may be fake.

I've never quite understood how proving it wasn't from Jesus's time disproves Christianity or how proving it was from Jesus's time does prove Christianity.

It's a fascinating artifact, but it has no theological implications.

Well said, although I disagree with the last paragraph IF it is authentic.


if it is real, it is THE ONLY piece of evidence that proves Jesus was real.  Christians NEED it to be real.  That is why even tho they know damn well that it is fake, how it was faked, how old it really is, that people keep "researching" it.

That is the only reason the "controversy" continues.  It is a medieval fake.  Once again, anyone that says otherwise is either a liar or a fool.
 
2013-03-29 01:58:44 PM  
Jesus was probably real. He wasn't born in Bethlehem. That was made up after the fact to fit with prior prophecies. The whole idea Romans sent people to where they were born to do a census is ludicrous... they did it to see how much tax money they should be receiving in areas.

We have multiple sourced documented evidence of this.


His mother wasn't a virgin either. That like the "Bethlehem birth myth" was probably taken from older scripts. There are numerous religions that predate Christianity that involve virgin births.

It is also possible she had been screwing round and was as convincing as Joseph was a gullible fool. Either that or they were practicing the pull out method prior to wedding.


For such a big event as told in the bible the fact that there are zero contempary accounts mean it is a story that was embellished over a generation or two.
 
2013-03-29 02:02:34 PM  
Christianity = messianic Judaism of the Roman occupation + Roman Paganism

religion in evolution.  Idea of God being himself + earthly representative (Jesus) = Roman Pagan idea
God being a 'singular' entity- all other gods false = Jewish idea
Idea of 'savior' = Jewish idea
Idea of young deity dying to teach us a lesson= Pagan idea
etc...
 
2013-03-29 02:04:17 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-29 02:06:39 PM  

colon_pow: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.


are claimed to have seen him afterwards. Claims are not proof.
 
2013-03-29 02:10:18 PM  

frepnog: T.rex: Close2TheEdge: WanPhat: As a Christian, let me say that the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has no effect whatsoever on my faith.  It may be a total intentional fake.  It may be the real shroud of Jesus.

It would make sense that someone kept his shroud.  Even if he didn't rise from the dead, someone may have taken his shroud.  It may have the image on it from divine zapping power, or it may be natural, or it may be fake.

I've never quite understood how proving it wasn't from Jesus's time disproves Christianity or how proving it was from Jesus's time does prove Christianity.

It's a fascinating artifact, but it has no theological implications.

It's the same reason that Young Earth Creationists employ pseudoscience to support their beliefs.  It's not enough that YOU believe in Christianity.  It's important to them that EVERYBODY believes in Christianity.  Even us skeptical atheist types who demand silly things like evidence....and facts.

When faith is not enough, make up shiat.

I'm not sure 'believe' is the right word... Christianity is a faith system... It surely exists... You might just choose not to 'subscribe' to it, but that doesn't change the fact that there's a thing out there called Christianity.

And that said, most altheist historians still can admit that Jesus was person who actually existed.   You might not 'believe' he's the son of the God, with magical powers, though that doesn't mean the Shroud of Turin for sure didn't belong the earthy man known as Jesus Christ.

it did not, and if you purport that it did you are either a liar or a fool.  fact is that "historians" have zero evidence that Jesus was real.  They gave up on trying to prove his (non) existence because believers just won't have it any other way other than he DID exist, but the simple truth is that the chances of biblical or even historical Jesus having been flesh and blood are slim to none.  The religion was pieced together from older crap and given a "modern" spin by includi ...


I find it interesting that you say there is no evidence to support historical Jesus, while conveniently saying the Shroud doesn't count...   Sure, if you just say this and that don't count, i think one will be eventually be left with no evidence.

I'm not even Christian. I'm just saying that i'm open-minded enough to accept the plausible chance that a man named Jesus Christ once walked the earth, whom people believed was the Son of God.   You don't need to invoke 'magic' or even the existence of God to accept this scenario as being possible.
 
2013-03-29 02:11:07 PM  

killdawabbitt: Christianity = messianic Judaism of the Roman occupation + Roman Paganism

religion in evolution.  Idea of God being himself + earthly representative (Jesus) = Roman Pagan idea
God being a 'singular' entity- all other gods false = Jewish idea
Idea of 'savior' = Jewish idea
Idea of young deity dying to teach us a lesson= Pagan idea
etc...


wow.  it's almost like people just make stuff up when it come to religion.

/you are correct.  that is exactly what it is.  most of Christianity is pagan crap mixed with Jewish crap mixed with pure crap.
 
2013-03-29 02:17:51 PM  

trappedspirit: munko: white Jesus or black Jesus?

[i141.photobucket.com image 300x363]


Jason Moma?
 
2013-03-29 02:18:41 PM  

T.rex: frepnog: T.rex: Close2TheEdge: WanPhat:


I find it interesting that you say there is no evidence to support historical Jesus, while conveniently saying the Shroud doesn't count...   Sure, if you just say this and that don't count, i think one will be eventually be left with no evidence.
I'm not even Christian. I'm just saying that i'm open-minded enough to accept the plausible chance that a man named Jesus Christ once walked the earth, whom people believed was the Son of God.   You don't need to invoke 'magic' or even the existence of God to accept this scenario as being possible.

if Jesus wasn't magic then there is no farking POINT to his existence or non-existence.  Why can't you get that?  If he wasn't magic then it doesn't MATTER if he was real, since if he wasn't magic then the entire religion is a lie.

Jesus wasn't magic, because magic isn't real.  Period.  Therefore it stands to reason that Jesus as a figure was an invented device.

Just like Moses, Abraham, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Satan ...............  All made up fairy stories.
 
2013-03-29 02:18:44 PM  
sharetv.org
Look, buddy, if I trusted the word of every customer that comes in saying that they have Jesus Christ's death shroud, I would be out of business really fast.  Do you have any provenance with this cloth?  Well, without any, the best I can do is $20, cash money.
 
2013-03-29 02:27:40 PM  
Bull...shiat
 
2013-03-29 02:27:55 PM  

T.rex: frepnog: T.rex: Close2TheEdge: WanPhat: As a Christian, let me say that the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has no effect whatsoever on my faith.  It may be a total intentional fake.  It may be the real shroud of Jesus.

It would make sense that someone kept his shroud.  Even if he didn't rise from the dead, someone may have taken his shroud.  It may have the image on it from divine zapping power, or it may be natural, or it may be fake.

I've never quite understood how proving it wasn't from Jesus's time disproves Christianity or how proving it was from Jesus's time does prove Christianity.

It's a fascinating artifact, but it has no theological implications.

It's the same reason that Young Earth Creationists employ pseudoscience to support their beliefs.  It's not enough that YOU believe in Christianity.  It's important to them that EVERYBODY believes in Christianity.  Even us skeptical atheist types who demand silly things like evidence....and facts.

When faith is not enough, make up shiat.

I'm not sure 'believe' is the right word... Christianity is a faith system... It surely exists... You might just choose not to 'subscribe' to it, but that doesn't change the fact that there's a thing out there called Christianity.

And that said, most altheist historians still can admit that Jesus was person who actually existed.   You might not 'believe' he's the son of the God, with magical powers, though that doesn't mean the Shroud of Turin for sure didn't belong the earthy man known as Jesus Christ.

it did not, and if you purport that it did you are either a liar or a fool.  fact is that "historians" have zero evidence that Jesus was real.  They gave up on trying to prove his (non) existence because believers just won't have it any other way other than he DID exist, but the simple truth is that the chances of biblical or even historical Jesus having been flesh and blood are slim to none.  The religion was pieced together from older crap and given a "modern" spin by includi ...

I find it interesting that you say there is no evidence to support historical Jesus, while conveniently saying the Shroud doesn't count...   Sure, if you just say this and that don't count, i think one will be eventually be left with no evidence.

I'm not even Christian. I'm just saying that i'm open-minded enough to accept the plausible chance that a man named Jesus Christ once walked the earth, whom people believed was the Son of God.   You don't need to invoke 'magic' or even the existence of God to accept this scenario as being possible.


I know we stepped on each other's toes a tad yesterday, so I'm not going to go off on a rant here on the off-chance you take it personally. That's not my intention. That being said, the first paragraph of that post was flawed from the get-go. You're saying that it is not fair to state that there is no proof while at the same time setting aside "proof". I suppose that would be correct if there were any REAL evidence that the Shroud of Turin is what it is claimed to be. But there's not. It's not that it can't be explained, it's not that it's a mystery. We know exactly what it is; a hoax. It is disingenuous. So to claim that you can't disprove something that has supporting proof is ludicrous because the proof isn't proof at all. It's a man-made attempt at "proof". It's no more proof of God than those famous pieces of toast. It's really not even anything that needs to be argued. If you want to occasionally use science to prove your insane theories, you actually have to accept the science that says your wrong, not spread disinformation about carbon dating or revert back to the "miracles could never be explained by science". Science was good enough when you thought it would support your belief, but it's not good enough when it completely annihilates your argument/religion? That doesn't add up. Kind of like organized religion.

/again, nothing personal, feel free to ignore this post
//I know they're not "your theories", just speaking generally
 
2013-03-29 02:31:50 PM  
T.rex:
And that said, most altheist historians still can admit that Jesus was person who actually existed.

They are just being polite.
 
2013-03-29 02:33:46 PM  

wildcardjack: The most remarkable thing would be that they had a few yards of cloth woven with an 11th century technique that far in advance.

Seriously, the type of loom required to produce this linen fabric didn't exist until much later. You don't need to go any further. The only reason to try to prove it's older is cognitive dissonance.


This.

I'm Christian (and YES, I know that 9/10th of the Bible is parable..) and I absolutely hate it when someone tries to prove the "authenticity" of the SoT.

Keep your BS to yourself, Mr. Christian "Scientist" man.
 
2013-03-29 02:58:11 PM  

frepnog: T.rex: frepnog: T.rex: Close2TheEdge: WanPhat:

I find it interesting that you say there is no evidence to support historical Jesus, while conveniently saying the Shroud doesn't count...   Sure, if you just say this and that don't count, i think one will be eventually be left with no evidence.
I'm not even Christian. I'm just saying that i'm open-minded enough to accept the plausible chance that a man named Jesus Christ once walked the earth, whom people believed was the Son of God.   You don't need to invoke 'magic' or even the existence of God to accept this scenario as being possible.

if Jesus wasn't magic then there is no farking POINT to his existence or non-existence.  Why can't you get that?  If he wasn't magic then it doesn't MATTER if he was real, since if he wasn't magic then the entire religion is a lie.

Jesus wasn't magic, because magic isn't real.  Period.  Therefore it stands to reason that Jesus as a figure was an invented device.

Just like Moses, Abraham, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Satan ...............  All made up fairy stories.


You're not magic either... So are you saying there is no point that you are on this earth?
 
2013-03-29 03:02:03 PM  

mooseyfate: T.rex: frepnog: T.rex: Close2TheEdge: WanPhat: As a Christian, let me say that the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has no effect whatsoever on my faith.  It may be a total intentional fake.  It may be the real shroud of Jesus.

It would make sense that someone kept his shroud.  Even if he didn't rise from the dead, someone may have taken his shroud.  It may have the image on it from divine zapping power, or it may be natural, or it may be fake.

I've never quite understood how proving it wasn't from Jesus's time disproves Christianity or how proving it was from Jesus's time does prove Christianity.

It's a fascinating artifact, but it has no theological implications.

It's the same reason that Young Earth Creationists employ pseudoscience to support their beliefs.  It's not enough that YOU believe in Christianity.  It's important to them that EVERYBODY believes in Christianity.  Even us skeptical atheist types who demand silly things like evidence....and facts.

When faith is not enough, make up shiat.

I'm not sure 'believe' is the right word... Christianity is a faith system... It surely exists... You might just choose not to 'subscribe' to it, but that doesn't change the fact that there's a thing out there called Christianity.

And that said, most altheist historians still can admit that Jesus was person who actually existed.   You might not 'believe' he's the son of the God, with magical powers, though that doesn't mean the Shroud of Turin for sure didn't belong the earthy man known as Jesus Christ.

it did not, and if you purport that it did you are either a liar or a fool.  fact is that "historians" have zero evidence that Jesus was real.  They gave up on trying to prove his (non) existence because believers just won't have it any other way other than he DID exist, but the simple truth is that the chances of biblical or even historical Jesus having been flesh and blood are slim to none.  The religion was pieced together from older crap and given a "modern" ...


I would never take offense or take it personally, just because we are coming into a conversation from two different viewpoints... In fact, i greatly respect when someone is able to make a point, regardless of whether or not i agree with it...  and you have done that... 

I agree with you some data suggests the Shroud is a fake, and if its a fake, then it certainly isn't proof of the existence of the earthly being known as Jesus.... But, is the door 100% closed on the matter?   Do we know it conclusively to be a fake?   Heck, it probably is a fake, though i wouldn't bet anything on it.
 
2013-03-29 03:02:32 PM  

Tom_Slick: Another Fun Fact, until the shroud was "Discovered" in the 1300s


One Dude:  "He ascended into heaven! He rose from the dead! He is truly the Lord! Maybe we should hold onto some stuff as a souvenir?"

Another Dude: "Oh, hell yeah. That cross, his sandals..."

Third Guy:  "Joseph of Aramathea, grab that burial cloth!"

Joseph:  "Oh, grody... no. He DIED in that thing. It's got blood and pus and dirt all over it. Plus, I think, down there... you know.. his bowels..."

ALL:  "Ewwwww....Christ Crap!"

First Dude:  "Just have Mary wash the thing. Mary!"

Mary:  "Oh for goodness sakes, get rid of that thing. I'm not putting it in with my unmentionables. Plus I already did whites yesterday."

Second Guy: "Okay, well, let's just leave it over here and we'll figure it out later."

1300 years later...

Knight of Crusades: "Hey, what's this thing?"

Wounded Arab: "Jesus's Burial cloth."

Knight of the Crusades:  "Is that..."

Wounded Arab:  "Yeah."

Knight of the Crusades:  "Ewww... Christ Crap. fark it. It's worth some gold either way. Take it with us."
 
2013-03-29 03:03:44 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: Must have been a study last month proving it was fake. This back and forth has been going on for decades now.


Actually, its going back on public display soon, and Leno didn't want it.
 
2013-03-29 03:08:05 PM  
Just watched Passion Of The Christ on some cable station. First time since it came out on dvd a few years ago. Just as hard to watch 2nd time around.
 
2013-03-29 03:15:52 PM  

malfist: Seriously people. Carbon dating has a resolution of around 5,000 years. Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them.


You need to read up.  Try +/- 40 years.  Two full orders of magnatude better than your drivel.
 
2013-03-29 03:22:45 PM  

T.rex: most altheist historians still can admit that Jesus was person who actually existed.


[citationneeded.jpg]

Wishful thinking ≠ facts
 
2013-03-29 03:23:20 PM  
btw the weave of the cloth of the shroud of Turin is a pattern, herringbone, that was not found in any early first century middle eastern linen or other fabrics. Didn't show up until much later, and not in the middle east.
 
2013-03-29 03:26:27 PM  

MadHatter500: malfist: Seriously people. Carbon dating has a resolution of around 5,000 years. Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them.

You need to read up.  Try +/- 40 years.  Two full orders of magnatude better than your drivel.


How would carbon dating work if the shroud was from the future? Has anyone checked this yet? It seems plausible enough, given a few other assumptions.
 
2013-03-29 03:31:37 PM  
Wouldn't a turian shroud look more like this:
images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-03-29 03:33:40 PM  
The research linking the shroud to between 280 B.C. and A.D. 220 was published in book by Giulio Fanti, a professor at Padua University, and journalist Saverio Gaeta.


So I assume I won't be the first to note that this date would still make it fake?

Also, isotope dating is pretty reliable and takes like an  hour(I would say "a few minutes", but you do have to verify chain of custody and load samples and so on).  The  only reason for it to take 15 years is if you're deliberately falsifying the data via cherry-picking.  Just pointing that out as a scientist.

It's also worth noting that the Catholic Church actually doesn't really care.  There's an old saying that dates back to the middle ages that if one took all of the totally real and legit fragments of the true cross in the church's possession one could rebuild the forests of Germany ten times over.  They're pretty well not bothered by most relics being fake, as technically they reject the worship of idols so their iconography and relics serve a symbolic and not literal purpose in the first place.
 
2013-03-29 03:39:23 PM  

olddinosaur: Here's what's wrong with the Shroud:

1. The man is tall and thin, most men of the times had short stocky physiques;
  blah blah blah

Everyone who wrote about Jesus considered him important, and no one mentions anywhere that he looked any different from the common men of his place and time.  When the Romans came to take him, they had to ask who he was, which proves it even more conclusively.  Jesus did not look any different from the average man of his place and time, the facts do not support any other conclusion.


You are trying to reason about a holy relic from a mythical figure.  Why even go through all this goofy analysis?

It's like being a ghost detective.   Sherlock Holmes using logic to disprove the Loch Ness Monster.
 
2013-03-29 03:40:31 PM  

sxacho: MadHatter500: malfist: Seriously people. Carbon dating has a resolution of around 5,000 years. Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them.

You need to read up.  Try +/- 40 years.  Two full orders of magnatude better than your drivel.

How would carbon dating work if the shroud was from the future? Has anyone checked this yet? It seems plausible enough, given a few other assumptions.


Serious answer to a silly question: Humans do shiat with nuclear reactions now, so carbon dating is not reliable past 1945.  The steady-state function underlying the paradigm has been undermined.

Actual answer: the chromatograph operator wearing a gold lame suit and pointy sunglasses telling you the results are "excellent" would be the only major difference.

/Party on.
 
2013-03-29 03:48:22 PM  

T.rex: You're not magic either... So are you saying there is no point that you are on this earth?


no one is claiming I am magic and then starting a religion based on my BEING magic.  I am on this earth because my mom got laid in the back seat of some useless asshole's car and neglected to make the dude wear a rubber.  Nope...  no real point I suppose.
 
2013-03-29 04:08:28 PM  

rpm: kobrakai: jjwars1: rpm: jjwars1: You realize miracles can't be proved? That's why they're called miracles. It wouldn't be a miracle if there were a perfectly rational explanation. It would simply be science. Poof. Miracle=science?

You realize that miracles can be observed, right? That puts them under science. If they aren't observable, they didn't happen. If they did happen, they can be analyzed.

Yes.  If you observe and analyze a "miracle" you'll find either A: The miracle can't be explained, or B. Science proves how the miracle occurred in which case it isn't a miracle- it's just science.

So what you're saying is there's no such thing as a miracle.

yes


Yes, as long as it has a scientific explanation.  Miracles are (my guess) things we can't explain scientifically yet.
 
2013-03-29 04:15:32 PM  

trappedspirit: Vatican researcher in 2009 said that faint writing on the cloth proves it was used to wrap Jesus' body after his crucifixion.

Jesus wuz here


I'm going with "Cannon"
 
2013-03-29 04:16:53 PM  
www.blackandwhitecat.org
 
2013-03-29 04:17:35 PM  

codergirl42: [www.blackandwhitecat.org image 256x200]


oops didn't realize it was a silly gif...
 
2013-03-29 04:21:44 PM  

Ed Grubermann: colon_pow: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

are claimed to have seen him afterwards. Claims are not proof.


A few people claim that hundreds of eye witnesses claim to have seen him afterwards.

Hearsay about Hearsay is not what one might consider valuable evidence.
 
2013-03-29 04:46:12 PM  

give me doughnuts: malfist: give me doughnuts: malfist: rpm: malfist: Seriously people. Carbon dating has a resolution of around 5,000 years. Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them.

Please note the bolded, embiggened, and underlined words.


It doesn't matter how bold you make them, it's still just plain wrong. You seem to misunderstand what a "half-life" is.

The basics: for any time period, there is a certain well-measured probability that any particular C14 atom will decay into N14. The half-life is the time period such that 50% of the atoms will decay. After another half-life, 50% more decay. And so on.

They don't suddenly decay all at once. You get a smooth exponential curve of the ratio between C14 (which decays) and C12 (which doesn't). The more precisely you can measure the ratio, the more precisely you can say how old the sample is. The resolution "tick" is, theoretically, the decay of a single atom, which in a sample of 10^23 atoms would make the resolution on the order of a tiny fraction of a femtosecond.

In practice you can't measure it that precisely, though it's pretty stunning how close they can get. (That does set the limit on just how far back they can measure the remaining C14 atoms, which goes for 10 or 12 cycles, or about 60,000 years.)

That isn't, however, the source of coarseness. The assumption is the original ratio of C14 to C12 in the sample. The atmosphere is bombarded cosmic rays that turn N14 back into C14 at a measurable, fairly constant rate. To a first approximation, that's a constant through that kind of time span, and we got OK carbon dates out of that.

To a second approximation, there are bursts of cosmic activity, which slightly alter the production. We can calibrate for that by measuring against artifacts of known age (such as parchment scrolls with dates on them, or wood artifacts known to have been made for a particular event). The further back you go, the wider the error bars; at 2000 years it's about +/- 20 years.

THAT is what the real resolution is. The half-life is NOT the resolution; that's just plain wrong.
 
2013-03-29 04:49:12 PM  

PainInTheASP: Jesus was an alien.


I grok you, dude.
 
2013-03-29 04:53:48 PM  
If it's Turin, it must be Good Friday.
 
2013-03-29 05:00:45 PM  
www.blogos.org

Lord, is it a sin to get the hots for Super Hunk Jesus?

Wny yes, it
is my child, but We forgive you.

I mean, really! Look at this adorable punim. Eat your heart out, Brad Pitt!
Who could resist all this? I don't even look remotely Jewish.

And if you saw Us in a sling shot bikini, we'd have to smite ye.

 
2013-03-29 05:02:54 PM  
Happy Passover!

All ham and bacon products are half price!
 
2013-03-29 05:08:37 PM  
Everybody knows that they substituted Judas for Jesus at the last moment. (Just ask the Muslims and Cathars.)

That's not Jesus.

It's Judas Iscariot.

It's just a coincidence that he looks exactly like a Thirteenth Century sculptors's conception of the Messiah rather than a First Century Judean.
 
2013-03-29 05:09:41 PM  

wiredroach: The shroud could have been forged by draping it over pigment applied to a person's face, which would deposit varying levels of pigment in proportion to the "elevation" of each facial feature. Scans of other objects can exhibit "3D" characteristics when there's a correlation between depth and dark/light value:


It it's "draped' over, the distance changes as the cloth conforms to the surface.  To get that distance to be accurate as the image is, you'd have to have a flat sheet.(and hence it's role as film and not an imprint)

The principle they're referring to is easily evident in 3d design.  It's a flat texture wrapped around a 3d structure and then rendered.  A 2d image made when wrapped/draped will not look realistic when unwrapped.

If it were draped, it would look like the following when laid flat:

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.comencrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com

If it were a picture of light projected onto a 2d surface it would look like:
The Shroud of Turin and every portrait you've ever seen.

/also  The differences between 2d paper maps, a globe, and a picture of the globe

Still not convinced?  Easy experiment.
Paint face(maybe just getting it wet will work)
Apply paper towel or cloth somewhat conforming to surface of the face.
Remove cloth and then lie flat on table
 
2013-03-29 05:19:26 PM  
It's such an obvious fake I can't believe people are still yammering about it. Really.
 
2013-03-29 05:40:40 PM  

olddinosaur: Everyone who wrote about Jesus considered him important, and no one mentions anywhere that he looked any different from the common men of his place and time. When the Romans came to take him, they had to ask who he was, which proves it even more conclusively. Jesus did not look any different from the average man of his place and time, the facts do not support any other conclusion.


Or maybe they didn't feel the need to say he looked differently than other people. Jesus was the son of God, so it makes sense he wouldn't be identical to every other person out there. Doesn't mean it's Him on the shroud, but just because the person supposedly looks different than other people in the era means nothing.
 
2013-03-29 05:53:48 PM  

CleanAndPure: colon_pow: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

Yet no one who saw him wrote about it. The gospels weren't written until 70 years after his supposed resurrection.

Strange no contemparies of Jesus thought to write about it.


there were these four fellers named Mathew, Mark, Luke and John who wrote about it.
 
2013-03-29 05:55:16 PM  
Sad that this is still a thing.

There is no way to "prove" that this shroud was used by the Jesus, unless you can go back in time and find him using it.  All this "science" (contrary to widely-accepted methods) can do is say it may be older than previously thought.  So what?  Even if it was used as a death shroud (which it probably wasn't) in the year 30 AD (which it probably wasn't) of a dead Jew (which it probably wasn't)- there were probably a lot of those guys living at the time.  You're telling me this was used by that one guy?  the one there are NO contemporary accounts of- only stories written down decades and centuries after he died?  Who's name certainly wasn't "Jesus Christ", who wasn't born Dec 25th (Pagan holiday), who was either from Nazareth or Bethlehem (we don't know) but was a 6 ft tall white dude?

If there was a way to take bets on this I'd bet the house- I've never seen easier odds.
 
2013-03-29 05:55:17 PM  

Z1P2: If the shroud of turin was used on Jesus, then it proves He didn't resurrect since the image left on it is from decomposition.


nope.  he passed through it.  it was left behind in the tomb.
 
2013-03-29 05:56:53 PM  

Lady Indica: It's such an obvious fake I can't believe people are still yammering about it. Really.


They want to believe it sooooooo bad that they would ignore a written confession to making the fake.
 
2013-03-29 05:57:58 PM  

Ed Grubermann: colon_pow: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

are claimed to have seen him afterwards. Claims are not proof.


ever seen a court room?  eye witnesses are powerful evidence.
 
2013-03-29 06:00:39 PM  

jjwars1: rpm: kobrakai: jjwars1: rpm: jjwars1: You realize miracles can't be proved? That's why they're called miracles. It wouldn't be a miracle if there were a perfectly rational explanation. It would simply be science. Poof. Miracle=science?

You realize that miracles can be observed, right? That puts them under science. If they aren't observable, they didn't happen. If they did happen, they can be analyzed.

Yes.  If you observe and analyze a "miracle" you'll find either A: The miracle can't be explained, or B. Science proves how the miracle occurred in which case it isn't a miracle- it's just science.

So what you're saying is there's no such thing as a miracle.

yes

Yes, as long as it has a scientific explanation.  Miracles are (my guess) things we can't explain scientifically yet.


I've never seen anyone talk themselves in circles here. If science can explain it, past/present/future, it's not a miracle, ergo miracles do not exist. The closest you'll find in the REAL world to a miracle is something incredibly improbable/unlikely or a straight up anomaly. Either way, not a miracle. You'll get over it, but probably not before Christian "science" eats it's own foot a few more times.
 
rpm
2013-03-29 06:02:03 PM  

colon_pow: ever seen a court room?  eye witnesses are powerful evidence.


Ever see studies on eyewitnesses? They suck
 
2013-03-29 06:02:05 PM  

colon_pow: Ed Grubermann: colon_pow: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

are claimed to have seen him afterwards. Claims are not proof.

ever seen a court room?  eye witnesses are powerful evidence.


Actually, the existance of the eyewitnesses is merely a claim at this point. Remember... the Bible is the claim, and can not be used as proof of itself.
 
2013-03-29 06:05:56 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Serious answer to a silly question: Humans do shiat with nuclear reactions now, so carbon dating is not reliable past 1945.  The steady-state function underlying the paradigm has been undermined.


Wow, that's way cool. I had no idea. But I just read that the zero-date for the bomb effect is considered to be 1950. Be excellent
 
2013-03-29 06:09:06 PM  

ParagonComplex: Or maybe they didn't feel the need to say he looked differently than other people. Jesus was the son of God, so it makes sense he wouldn't be identical to every other person out there. Doesn't mean it's Him on the shroud, but just because the person supposedly looks different than other people in the era means nothing.


That makes no sense.  If he was so glaringly different, and the reason was so glaringly obvious that you didn't even have to point it out, then why didn't everyone just bow and worship him on sight?  Since everyone evidently was 100% sure about what the Son of God looked like*, and were 100% sure Jesus fit the description (so sure in fact that even mentioning he fit the description was considered too blase to ever be written down), there would be no reason to do otherwise.  "We hates him, yes we does, precious" doesn't even fly.  The priests have abundant records of what happens when you accidentally make God slightly non-orgasmic, i.e. complete genocide; you cannot realistically say the entire upper class of Israel were raging megalomaniacal race-suicides - at least a few would have to have a small sense of self-preservation.

It also doesn't get around the whole Judas pointing him out problem:  Even if the Romans didn't know the universal description of Son of God, there was no reason to go through the whole deal of dragging Judas along. Just grab any Jew and pay them a few coins to explain what the Son of God looks like.  Or turn to the approximately 2,854,781,739,21,729,217,819 Roman centurions who used Jesus as an HMO and then started a fan club francise

*BTW, if it was so glaringly obvious that no one could doubt it, yet not need to describe it, I have to assume the Son of God description was thus: He is 13 feet tall; has bright orange skin, covered is chartreuse tattoos spelling out the phrase "My shiat Smells Like Roses" in every possible language; a blue mohawk half a mile is radius, with each individual hair ending in a foot-wide disco ball; his 9 cocks all drag along the ground behind him for 20 feet, each one whistling the tune for Hava Nagila in 4 part harmony; he has 20 eyes, each neon purple; his teeth are numbered in the hundreds, are each made of steel, and each constantly crawls out of his mouth and ambles along his hundreds of red facial tentacles, until they grow bored and spontaneously explode into showers of diamonds
 
2013-03-29 06:12:47 PM  

Surool: colon_pow: Ed Grubermann: colon_pow: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

are claimed to have seen him afterwards. Claims are not proof.

ever seen a court room?  eye witnesses are powerful evidence.

Actually, the existance of the eyewitnesses is merely a claim at this point. Remember... the Bible is the claim, and can not be used as proof of itself.


In fact, it is often said there is as much evidence for an historical Jesus as there is for the existence of a great many other historical figures whose existence is never seriously doubted. In A Marginal Jew - Rethinking The Historical Jesus, for example, John Meier notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on a few sheets of paper, yet no one doubts that Alexander existed.  Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant argues that

if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2012/04/published-in-faith-and-philos op hy-2011.html
 
2013-03-29 06:19:29 PM  

Mad_Radhu:

I'd be hilarious if Pope Francis, being a Jesuit who seems open to reason, decreed it a fake and told everyone to get over it.
Don't sell yourself short -- you're hilarious now, whether you mean to be or not.
 
2013-03-29 06:20:26 PM  

colon_pow: Surool: colon_pow: Ed Grubermann: colon_pow: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

are claimed to have seen him afterwards. Claims are not proof.

ever seen a court room?  eye witnesses are powerful evidence.

Actually, the existance of the eyewitnesses is merely a claim at this point. Remember... the Bible is the claim, and can not be used as proof of itself.

In fact, it is often said there is as much evidence for an historical Jesus as there is for the existence of a great many other historical figures whose existence is never seriously doubted. In A Marginal Jew - Rethinking The Historical Jesus, for example, John Meier notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on a few sheets of paper, yet no one doubts that Alexander existed.  Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant argues that

if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2012/04/published-in-faith-and-philos op hy-2011.html


Okay, we accept that there was some delusional Jew running around Palestine at some point.
 
rpm
2013-03-29 06:21:00 PM  

colon_pow: In fact, it is often said there is as much evidence for an historical Jesus as there is for the existence of a great many other historical figures


Yes, yes it is.

And it is wrong
 
2013-03-29 06:24:04 PM  

colon_pow: CleanAndPure: colon_pow: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

Yet no one who saw him wrote about it. The gospels weren't written until 70 years after his supposed resurrection.

Strange no contemparies of Jesus thought to write about it.

there were these four fellers named Mathew, Mark, Luke and John who wrote about it.


You're forgetting at least one other source.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-03-29 06:32:02 PM  

colon_pow: CleanAndPure: colon_pow: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

Yet no one who saw him wrote about it. The gospels weren't written until 70 years after his supposed resurrection.

Strange no contemparies of Jesus thought to write about it.

there were these four fellers named Mathew, Mark, Luke and John who wrote about it.


Setting aside the dubious historicity of their writings, that's four out of how many hundreds or thousands of supposed witnesses? And those four would be rather biased, too. That'd be like 9/11 only being witnessed by a dozen neo-cons.
 
2013-03-29 06:32:48 PM  

omeganuepsilon: wiredroach: The shroud could have been forged by draping it over pigment applied to a person's face, which would deposit varying levels of pigment in proportion to the "elevation" of each facial feature. Scans of other objects can exhibit "3D" characteristics when there's a correlation between depth and dark/light value:

It it's "draped' over, the distance changes as the cloth conforms to the surface.  To get that distance to be accurate as the image is, you'd have to have a flat sheet.(and hence it's role as film and not an imprint)

The principle they're referring to is easily evident in 3d design.  It's a flat texture wrapped around a 3d structure and then rendered.  A 2d image made when wrapped/draped will not look realistic when unwrapped.

If it were draped, it would look like the following when laid flat:

[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 275x183][encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 304x166]

If it were a picture of light projected onto a 2d surface it would look like:
The Shroud of Turin and every portrait you've ever seen.

/also  The differences between 2d paper maps, a globe, and a picture of the globe

Still not convinced?  Easy experiment.
Paint face(maybe just getting it wet will work)
Apply paper towel or cloth somewhat conforming to surface of the face.
Remove cloth and then lie flat on table


But the shroud fakery depends on not wrapping the cloth tightly around the face...it's different than using 3D shaders in  modeling software, which conform precisely to the geometry of the model. Which is why the speculation along these lines is that the forger could have used a flat bas relief model for the face with pigment applied. this would transfer pigment at different levels based on the elevation of the facial features, while the cloth would still remain essentially flat and not like what you're describing. Here's a more thorough description of the process:

http://phys.org/news4652.html
 
2013-03-29 06:42:11 PM  

phalamir: colon_pow: Surool: colon_pow: Ed Grubermann: colon_pow: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

are claimed to have seen him afterwards. Claims are not proof.

ever seen a court room?  eye witnesses are powerful evidence.

Actually, the existance of the eyewitnesses is merely a claim at this point. Remember... the Bible is the claim, and can not be used as proof of itself.

In fact, it is often said there is as much evidence for an historical Jesus as there is for the existence of a great many other historical figures whose existence is never seriously doubted. In A Marginal Jew - Rethinking The Historical Jesus, for example, John Meier notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on a few sheets of paper, yet no one doubts that Alexander existed.  Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant argues that

if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2012/04/published-in-faith-and-philos op hy-2011.html

Okay, we accept that there was some delusional Jew running around Palestine at some point.


There is more evidence that Harry Potter really exists than Jesus.
 
2013-03-29 06:44:09 PM  

s2s2s2:

No one has made a forgery that renders a 3D image.

That's only ONE of the problems with the forgery idea.  We had a Fark thread more than a year back in which scientists had finally been able to figure out a method by which a similar image could be formed.  They used a UV laser to etch it.  The image is formed, not from pigments, as in paint, but by the fibers being charred.  And, the weird part is that only the OUTSIDE of the fibers is charred.  Cut a fiber, look at the cross-section, and you'll find the inside of the fiber is not charred.  So, if you're okay with the idea that medieval forgers had computers to generate a 2-D encoding of a 3-D image, and a UV laser to burn that image onto the Shroud, yeah, "forgers" is an okay explanation.  Otherwise, keep searching.
 
2013-03-29 06:48:11 PM  

Magorn:

Associating it with DaVinci seems as fanciful as associating it with Jesus to me. Some research I've read suggests that you could also recreate the effect of the shroud by heating a bronze casting to about 900 degrees in a oven and then wrapping the linen around it.

No.  The inside of the fibers are not charred.  Draping it over hot metal would char a fiber all the way through.
 
2013-03-29 06:48:32 PM  
Dumb as bigfoot.
 
2013-03-29 06:50:11 PM  

s2s2s2: Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.

No. Because if it was painted, it wouldn't render a 3d image when scanned.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 330x330]

Those shrouds weren't pressed down like your supposition requires.


This is funny because in a college art project I used the method in paper marbling to creat my own shroud image, with the whole 3-d effect.   even more funny is the shrouds used in Judea at that time were wraps and had two parts, one that wrapped the body and one that wrapped the head.  people prior to the shroud of turnin and several other competing shrouds knew this and created portrates of Jesus with just the head wrap and Jesus with just the body wrap.   yes it is a fake.  yes all of the splinters of the cross are fakes, yes all of the nails, the spear of destiny and the like are all fakes.   quit worshiping idols!
 
2013-03-29 06:52:59 PM  

colon_pow: Z1P2: If the shroud of turin was used on Jesus, then it proves He didn't resurrect since the image left on it is from decomposition.

nope.  he passed through it.  it was left behind in the tomb.


Plus look at all the leaked fluids. It wasn't a clean death after all. I'm sure even after cleaning the body there were various proteins and bacteria left over to start staining things.


All in all, just having an object from a legendary figure (even if he isn't magical he has quite a story attached to him) and saying yes, the guy did exist and we have a piece of that history is note worthy. Why do we put pieces of our past in museums? Was Tutankhamun a God? Not likely but he was/is a piece of history.
 
2013-03-29 06:53:20 PM  

vygramul:

Doesn't the Urantia book have something to say about this?

Not specifically.  However, the description of the time in the tomb in the Urantia Book WOULD produce an image precisely like that on the Shroud of Turin.  The U.B. was entered into the Library of Congress in 1955, long before the nature of the image on the Shroud was known.  The U.B. also says that veneration of objects is a infantile superstition, so, real or not, it's not important, other than as a historical object.
 
2013-03-29 06:53:30 PM  

John Buck 41: Just watched Passion Of The Christ on some cable station. First time since it came out on dvd a few years ago. Just as hard to watch 2nd time around.


Around here we call it "The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre". Can't believe that some people show it to children.
 
2013-03-29 06:56:47 PM  

give me doughnuts:

You said it was accurate to 2000 years by stating "Something from 1 AD would appear the same age as something from today if you carbon dated both of them."
You don't read very well, do you?
 
2013-03-29 06:57:10 PM  

wiredroach: the forger could have used a flat bas relief model for the face with pigment applied. this would transfer pigment at different levels based on the elevation of the facial features,


Ah, I believe I see what you're saying now.  What you're talking about would be more simply described as a stamp. IE:

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

Not elevation of the facial features, but in the depiction, the elevation in the bas relief.

That's what was throwing me off.(in combination with "draping" of course.)

You're more about describing how it was done.

I was more simply describing how it couldn't be a shroud.
If you take the following cloth and lie it on a flat surface it will not look like a photograph, whatever image is there would be distorted:
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
Ergo, any image transferral would be more relative to something 2d in nature like a photograph(or as you suggest, an imprint from a flatter object than a human body)

/i do believe the bottom pic is cloth dynamics in Poser, but was one of the better results for "shroud draping" that conveyed the right picture, the coinsidense of 3d software is a fluke
 
2013-03-29 06:58:44 PM  

Surool: colon_pow: Ed Grubermann: colon_pow: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

are claimed to have seen him afterwards. Claims are not proof.

ever seen a court room?  eye witnesses are powerful evidence.

Actually, the existance of the eyewitnesses is merely a claim at this point. Remember... the Bible is the claim, and can not be used as proof of itself.


So we haven't gone to mars with probes and rovers. After all we cannot take the word of NASA and the video THEY produce cannot be used as proof itself.
 
2013-03-29 07:03:06 PM  

GeneralJim: raping it over hot metal would char a fiber all the way through.


Heh, raping, that was a total accident, but i'm leaving it.(starting to get angry with my mouse click though)

Anyways, it's like cooking a burger.  You cook it slow, it cooks through, you cook it fast, the outside burns the inside hardly warms up(if you remove it fast enough.

Nothing worse than my brother in law at the grill.  You get Vader burgers.  Black and crispy on the outside, raw and pink in the middle.

/heh, we're all pink in the middle
 
2013-03-29 07:05:52 PM  

rpm:

You realize that miracles can be observed, right? That puts them under science. If they aren't observable, they didn't happen. If they did happen, they can be analyzed.

Just ask Lazarus...  he was not only dead, he was starting to smell bad, and he got up and walked away.  Personally, I would count resurrection as miraculous.  YMMV.
 
2013-03-29 07:06:43 PM  
So Jesus was 280 years old when he was crucified?
 
2013-03-29 07:09:13 PM  

Big_Fat_Liar:

I've wondered what makes people submit 2nd and 3rd hand articles instead of the original source - especially when it comes to Huffpo or Fox articles. Why use a source a good number of people are going to find laughable when there is an obvious better/original one? (I guess it's just to give people like me something to biatch about)
Speaking personally, if someone submits the GOOD link with a crappy headline, it can be rejected.  Then, "liters" cannot submit that link, and must find another bit of reportage to submit the story with their clever headline.
 
2013-03-29 07:11:48 PM  

GeneralJim: Big_Fat_Liar: I've wondered what makes people submit 2nd and 3rd hand articles instead of the original source - especially when it comes to Huffpo or Fox articles. Why use a source a good number of people are going to find laughable when there is an obvious better/original one? (I guess it's just to give people like me something to biatch about)Speaking personally, if someone submits the GOOD link with a crappy headline, it can be rejected.  Then, "liters" cannot submit that link, and must find another bit of reportage to submit the story with their clever headline.


Also, link $, suck as kickbacks or referrals
 
2013-03-29 07:13:03 PM  

GeneralJim: rpm: You realize that miracles can be observed, right? That puts them under science. If they aren't observable, they didn't happen. If they did happen, they can be analyzed.
Just ask Lazarus...  he was not only dead, he was starting to smell bad, and he got up and walked away.  Personally, I would count resurrection as miraculous.  YMMV.


Yet still not actually proven to have happened! And do you think your green text makes you important or something?
 
2013-03-29 07:13:46 PM  

ReverendJynxed: Surool: colon_pow: Ed Grubermann: colon_pow: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

are claimed to have seen him afterwards. Claims are not proof.

ever seen a court room?  eye witnesses are powerful evidence.

Actually, the existance of the eyewitnesses is merely a claim at this point. Remember... the Bible is the claim, and can not be used as proof of itself.

So we haven't gone to mars with probes and rovers. After all we cannot take the word of NASA and the video THEY produce cannot be used as proof itself.


You are more than welcome to takes mythical bronze-age writing complete with multiple versions, deleted and contradictory accounts as a complete and true if you want. You are also welcome to deny that there is noting that exists but the Earth, and the stars but pinholes in the curtain of night. Go all in, it's a free country.
 
2013-03-29 07:15:36 PM  

Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.


Yup. Not to mention, a piece of linen supposedly that old would've disintegrated to dust long ago. There's already been a number of radiocarbon dating tests done on the shroud, the age of it isn't going to suddenly change.
 
2013-03-29 07:23:24 PM  

WhyteRaven74:

Nothing but a camera obscura, a piece of cloth and some photosensitive chemicals
Oh, right.  Medieval forgers make a fake Shroud by developing photography.  Very clever.  WTF would they bother?  Get a cloth, rough it up and paint on it -- that always worked in the medieval relic scams.  That's ALMOST as dumb as suggesting that they had computers and UV lasers -- but at least the computer and lasers COULD produce the type of image on the shroud; your idea could not.
 
2013-03-29 07:23:45 PM  

colon_pow: Z1P2: If the shroud of turin was used on Jesus, then it proves He didn't resurrect since the image left on it is from decomposition.

nope.  he passed through it.  it was left behind in the tomb.


Then why is it only the surface of his body? Shouldn't his bones and organs have left an impression?
 
2013-03-29 07:25:34 PM  

colon_pow: Ed Grubermann: colon_pow: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

are claimed to have seen him afterwards. Claims are not proof.

ever seen a court room?  eye witnesses are powerful evidence.


I've served on several juries. Eye-witness testimony is not held in high esteem without backing evidence.
 
rpm
2013-03-29 07:29:18 PM  

GeneralJim: Just ask LazarusOsiris...  he was not only dead, he was starting to smell bad, and he got up and walked away.  Personally, I would count resurrection as miraculous.  YMMV.


What is the difference in content between your version and mine? Why is mine wrong and yours right? Or, as is more likely, both wrong?
 
2013-03-29 07:33:07 PM  

s2s2s2: No. Because if it was painted, it wouldn't render a 3d image when scanned.


Not sure if serious, or just very poorly worded.

Any contrasting image an be extracted into a 3d shape.  Hand drawn, photographic, photoshop, whatever.

All depends on how the software engineers want to read the information.  Typically called displacement maps, or bump maps.

www.moridin.com   This turns into:

www.moridin.com

www.moridin.com

Commonly used in video games to simulate active lighting(shininess or wetness) or depth in texture because it appears to change when your perspetctive moves.

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-03-29 07:37:02 PM  

GeneralJim: rpm: You realize that miracles can be observed, right? That puts them under science. If they aren't observable, they didn't happen. If they did happen, they can be analyzed.

Just ask Lazarus...  he was not only dead, he was starting to smell bad, and he got up and walked away.  Personally, I would count resurrection as miraculous.  YMMV.


Okay. Let's ask him. Where is he? Prove that he actually existed. Then we'll talk about his supposed resurrection.
 
2013-03-29 07:37:46 PM  
I love this thread.

/not being sarcastic.
 
2013-03-29 07:38:52 PM  

rpm:

So things 2000 years apart would show as AT WORST 2015 years apart. Not the same, 2015 years apart. That's over 3 orders of magnitude wrong.

fc05.deviantart.net
 
2013-03-29 07:42:55 PM  

omeganuepsilon: wiredroach: the forger could have used a flat bas relief model for the face with pigment applied. this would transfer pigment at different levels based on the elevation of the facial features,

Ah, I believe I see what you're saying now.  What you're talking about would be more simply described as a stamp. IE:

[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 259x194]

Not elevation of the facial features, but in the depiction, the elevation in the bas relief.

That's what was throwing me off.(in combination with "draping" of course.)

You're more about describing how it was done.

I was more simply describing how it couldn't be a shroud.
If you take the following cloth and lie it on a flat surface it will not look like a photograph, whatever image is there would be distorted:
[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 299x168]
Ergo, any image transferral would be more relative to something 2d in nature like a photograph(or as you suggest, an imprint from a flatter object than a human body)

/i do believe the bottom pic is cloth dynamics in Poser, but was one of the better results for "shroud draping" that conveyed the right picture, the coinsidense of 3d software is a fluke


More or less, yeah.
 
2013-03-29 07:43:02 PM  

wiredroach:

Doesn't require magical resurrection Jesus beams at all. Just means that the pigment on the shroud is proportional to depth, rather than a static depiction of a fixed light source falling on a 3-dimensional face as in most paintings or drawings.
A nice hypothesis -- but there's no pigment on the Shroud.
 
2013-03-29 07:43:28 PM  

Surool: ReverendJynxed: Surool: colon_pow: Ed Grubermann: colon_pow: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

are claimed to have seen him afterwards. Claims are not proof.

ever seen a court room?  eye witnesses are powerful evidence.

Actually, the existance of the eyewitnesses is merely a claim at this point. Remember... the Bible is the claim, and can not be used as proof of itself.

So we haven't gone to mars with probes and rovers. After all we cannot take the word of NASA and the video THEY produce cannot be used as proof itself.

You are more than welcome to takes mythical bronze-age writing complete with multiple versions, deleted and contradictory accounts as a complete and true if you want. You are also welcome to deny that there is noting that exists but the Earth, and the stars but pinholes in the curtain of night. Go all in, it's a free country.


It's your logic.
 
2013-03-29 07:45:33 PM  

GeneralJim: WhyteRaven74: Nothing but a camera obscura, a piece of cloth and some photosensitive chemicalsOh, right.  Medieval forgers make a fake Shroud by developing photography.  Very clever.  WTF would they bother?  Get a cloth, rough it up and paint on it -- that always worked in the medieval relic scams.  That's ALMOST as dumb as suggesting that they had computers and UV lasers -- but at least the computer and lasers COULD produce the type of image on the shroud; your idea could not.



WIKI:
The camera obscura has been known to scholars since the time of Mozi and Aristotle.[2] The first surviving mention of the principles behind the pinhole camera or camera obscura belongs to Mozi (Mo-Ti) (470 to 390 BCE), a Chinese philosopher and the founder of Mohism.[3] Mozi referred to this device as a "collecting plate" or "locked treasure room."[4]
The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384 to 322 BCE) understood the optical principle of the pinhole camera.[5] He viewed the crescent shape of a partially eclipsed sun projected on the ground through the holes in a sieve and through the gaps between the leaves of a plane tree. In the 4th century BCE, Aristotle noted that "sunlight travelling through small openings between the leaves of a tree, the holes of a sieve, the openings wickerwork, and even interlaced fingers will create circular patches of light on the ground." Euclid's Optics (ca 300 BCE) presupposed the camera obscura as a demonstration that light travels in straight lines.[6] In the 4th century, Greek scholar Theon of Alexandria observed that "candlelight passing through a pinhole will create an illuminated spot on a screen that is directly in line with the aperture and the center of the candle."


Wasn't a new idea, and Da Vinci loved such gizmo's, even wrote about(or drew) this one in his own works.   It's not an impossible thing as you suggest.
 
2013-03-29 07:49:29 PM  

frepnog:

That is the only reason the "controversy" continues. It is a medieval fake. Once again, anyone that says otherwise is either a liar or a fool.
Really?  So, you have faith that medieval forgers had computers and UV lasers to manufacture relics.  I'd say that makes YOU a liar or a fool.
 
2013-03-29 07:50:18 PM  

GeneralJim: wiredroach: Doesn't require magical resurrection Jesus beams at all. Just means that the pigment on the shroud is proportional to depth, rather than a static depiction of a fixed light source falling on a 3-dimensional face as in most paintings or drawings.A nice hypothesis -- but there's no pigment on the Shroud.


Coloration then?  There is a visible image correct?

Getting pedantic now...
 
rpm
2013-03-29 07:53:23 PM  

GeneralJim: Really?  So, you have faith that medieval forgers had computers and UV lasers to manufacture relics.  I'd say that makes YOU a liar or a fool.


No, but they did have the silver nitrate that's been found on the shroud. And hmmm, what is silver nitrate used for?
 
2013-03-29 07:55:05 PM  

GeneralJim: frepnog: That is the only reason the "controversy" continues. It is a medieval fake. Once again, anyone that says otherwise is either a liar or a fool.Really?  So, you have faith that medieval forgers had computers and UV lasers to manufacture relics.  I'd say that makes YOU a liar or a fool.


Do you always misrepresent what other people are saying? Computers and lasers are not needed to create the shroud.
 
2013-03-29 07:56:15 PM  
GeneralJim, shroud of Turin believer and global warming denier.

I think that says it all really.
 
2013-03-29 08:02:25 PM  

GeneralJim: A nice hypothesis -- but there's no pigment on the Shroud.


Ok, then you've proven your case. Clearly it was caused by Jesus.
 
2013-03-29 08:08:19 PM  

ReverendJynxed: Surool: ReverendJynxed: Surool: colon_pow: Ed Grubermann: colon_pow: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

are claimed to have seen him afterwards. Claims are not proof.

ever seen a court room?  eye witnesses are powerful evidence.

Actually, the existance of the eyewitnesses is merely a claim at this point. Remember... the Bible is the claim, and can not be used as proof of itself.

So we haven't gone to mars with probes and rovers. After all we cannot take the word of NASA and the video THEY produce cannot be used as proof itself.

You are more than welcome to takes mythical bronze-age writing complete with multiple versions, deleted and contradictory accounts as a complete and true if you want. You are also welcome to deny that there is noting that exists but the Earth, and the stars but pinholes in the curtain of night. Go all in, it's a free country.

It's your logic.


No, in my logic, the claim is that we went to Mars, and the photos and the data are the proof. It's a pretty big difference in both the example provided and the quality of evidence. Then again, false equivalency is the only way people like you can avoid looking like complete tools... to yourselves anyway.
 
2013-03-29 08:18:36 PM  
Jesus or not, it doesn't prove he was the son of god.
 
2013-03-29 08:30:12 PM  

GeneralJim: Just ask Lazarus...  he was not only dead, he was starting to smell bad, and he got up and walked away.

<Not going to quote all of the other stuff...>


And you actually think that happened because a book written by sheep herders that lived in mud huts and believed epileptic seizures were caused by demonic possession says so? Not to mention the fact that the accounts of all of these things were written by people that weren't even there. Also, a large portion of the Christian dogma was decided upon a group of people convened by Constantine I in 325 AD known as the First Council of Nicaea which greatly influenced which accounts were eventually canonized and included in the book you know today.  If I were to throw skepticism out the window like the "true believer" does when claiming their holy book to be the true authority on historical matters, I could use the same logic to state Spiderman is real - there are several illustrated books detailing his actions that could not have been made unless they were there to witness his deeds!

Look, I understand you are afraid of death and want life to go on forever. And, due to this fear you will hold on to whatever "evidence", real or imaginary, you can find to support your belief in a Santa Claus like figure that will grant you the Grand Prize of life after death for behaving in a way consistent with your interpretation of what it means to follow his rules and not get on to the naughty list. But, when you start saying things like "OMG RESURRECTIONZ IS REEL 'CAUSE BIBLE SAYZ PEEPLES SAW IT", you do nothing but open yourself up to ridicule. Science works by changing theories to fit observable or experimental data that can be measured, reproduced, and verified by others. Religion clings to a dogma no matter how retarded it is - i.e. transubstantiation, resurrection, miracles, etc. - and will only count evidence as true if it supports the dogma. Any evidence to the contrary is "blasphemous", "evil", or created by some type of entity to distract us from the "Truth" of the dogma. This is why anyone with any critical thinking skills or understanding of empirical evidence will at best be skeptical of your claims, and at worst laugh in your face.

Greeks and Romans believed in their gods existence as well, but no one today would ever consider those beliefs to be more than mythology. The same is true for the bible. Religion is created when unexplainable phenomenon are frightening. During biblical times, this included sickness, death, natural disasters, etc. Stories circulate to explain things in a way people with limited scientific knowledge will understand (that earthquake means our god/gods are pissed!), then become embellished and passed down orally. They end up being complete fabrications infused with each teller's prejudices and interpretations, not unlike the game of "telephone" you may have played in school. Then a literate person writes it down. Other people follow suit and suddenly - Voila! - someone sticks them all together, edits them so they match up (more or less) and holds up the new book written by God himself! It still happens today - homeopathy, psychics, penis enlargement techniques that don't involve surgery, etc., are all dubious claims that the scientifically illiterate will believe in. Religions still crop up, too - How about a nice dose of Mormonism or Scientology? The Raelian Movement seems like fun. Why do these things persist? The same reason religion does - in order for the purveyors to obtain wealth and/or power.

Do yourself a favor - learn to be skeptical.
 
2013-03-29 08:34:40 PM  

kobrakai: jjwars1: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

You realize miracles can't be proved? That's why they're called miracles. It wouldn't be a miracle if there were a perfectly rational explanation. It would simply be science. Poof. Miracle=science?

I guess I should have been more specific. Prove he walked on water or turned water into wine and I might pay attention.


That water to wine thing was Everclear and concentrated grape juice.
 
2013-03-29 08:36:39 PM  

fetushead: And you actually think that happened because a book


Can we stick to the article at hand.  Jesus and his supposed shroud?

We kind of had a nice science thread going.
 
2013-03-29 08:54:20 PM  

fetushead: Do yourself a favor - learn to be skeptical.


Why would he be doing himself a favor? He might be happier the way he is.
I would love to be able to share the Christian's belief that the universe I live in is the rational product of the mind of a just and loving god.
I would love to share the Muslim's belief that the universe is a fair place, where the just and kind are rewarded, and the wicked punished.
I would love to share the Hindu's belief that I can come back and live again and again, until I get it right.
Unfortunately, I do not possess the capacity to believe any of those things - but I happily would, if I could.
 
2013-03-29 08:56:33 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Can we stick to the article at hand.  Jesus and his supposed shroud?

We kind of had a nice science thread going.


What science?
 
2013-03-29 09:08:14 PM  

Surool: omeganuepsilon: Can we stick to the article at hand.  Jesus and his supposed shroud?

We kind of had a nice science thread going.

What science?


I found foetushead's essay quite an enjoyable read and look forward to more.  The science revolved around the hows and whys of carbon dating.  It too was a nice read. We were also treated to a fallacy of the excluded middle where the statement that either Iesus magically rose through the fabric of the shroud, scorching it on the way ( ana/kata in all directions, by the way), or that the 11th century forger had access to computers and ultraviolet lasers was offered as proof that it had to be Iesus.
 
2013-03-29 09:10:20 PM  

Surool: omeganuepsilon: Can we stick to the article at hand.  Jesus and his supposed shroud?

We kind of had a nice science thread going.

What science?


Carbon dating.  Image transference techniques.  Spacial Relations and the nature of light, perspective, etc...culminating in  Camera Obsura/bas relief possibilities.

For a religion based thread, it had a LOT of science.

t3.gstatic.com
 
2013-03-29 09:10:43 PM  

phalamir: That makes no sense. If he was so glaringly different, and the reason was so glaringly obvious that you didn't even have to point it out, then why didn't everyone just bow and worship him on sight? Since everyone evidently was 100% sure about what the Son of God looked like*, and were 100% sure Jesus fit the description (so sure in fact that even mentioning he fit the description was considered too blase to ever be written down), there would be no reason to do otherwise. "We hates him, yes we does, precious" doesn't even fly. The priests have abundant records of what happens when you accidentally make God slightly non-orgasmic, i.e. complete genocide; you cannot realistically say the entire upper class of Israel were raging megalomaniacal race-suicides - at least a few would have to have a small sense of self-preservation.

It also doesn't get around the whole Judas pointing him out problem: Even if the Romans didn't know the universal description of Son of God, there was no reason to go through the whole deal of dragging Judas along. Just grab any Jew and pay them a few coins to explain what the Son of God looks like. Or turn to the approximately 2,854,781,739,21,729,217,819 Roman centurions who used Jesus as an HMO and then started a fan club francise

*BTW, if it was so glaringly obvious that no one could doubt it, yet not need to describe it, I have to assume the Son of God description was thus: He is 13 feet tall; has bright orange skin, covered is chartreuse tattoos spelling out the phrase "My shiat Smells Like Roses" in every possible language; a blue mohawk half a mile is radius, with each individual hair ending in a foot-wide disco ball; his 9 cocks all drag along the ground behind him for 20 feet, each one whistling the tune for Hava Nagila in 4 part harmony; he has 20 eyes, each neon purple; his teeth are numbered in the hundreds, are each made of steel, and each constantly crawls out of his mouth and ambles along his hundreds of red facial tentacle ...


Haha, you made me lol. Good job. Not at you but with you sort of thing. That and your description was pretty good. All I'm saying is I don't really recall any physical descriptions of anyone in the Bible sans The Jesus' hole-y hands. They may not have been bigotted assholes who thought "One of these is not like the other; which one of these things isn't the same! Let's kill it!". The Shroud could be nonsense, but it isn't nonsense because the person looks differently than what you say people looked like back then. It'd be nonsense, because it could have been anyone.
 
2013-03-29 09:12:02 PM  

dopirt: Surool: omeganuepsilon: Can we stick to the article at hand.  Jesus and his supposed shroud?

We kind of had a nice science thread going.

What science?

I found foetushead's essay quite an enjoyable read and look forward to more.  The science revolved around the hows and whys of carbon dating.  It too was a nice read. We were also treated to a fallacy of the excluded middle where the statement that either Iesus magically rose through the fabric of the shroud, scorching it on the way ( ana/kata in all directions, by the way), or that the 11th century forger had access to computers and ultraviolet lasers was offered as proof that it had to be Iesus.


Call me back when somebody performs an experiment using more conventional methods of creating the image and leaves it alone for 700-800 years.
 
2013-03-29 09:16:25 PM  

Surool: dopirt: Surool: omeganuepsilon: Can we stick to the article at hand.  Jesus and his supposed shroud?

We kind of had a nice science thread going.

What science?

I found foetushead's essay quite an enjoyable read and look forward to more.  The science revolved around the hows and whys of carbon dating.  It too was a nice read. We were also treated to a fallacy of the excluded middle where the statement that either Iesus magically rose through the fabric of the shroud, scorching it on the way ( ana/kata in all directions, by the way), or that the 11th century forger had access to computers and ultraviolet lasers was offered as proof that it had to be Iesus.

Call me back when somebody performs an experiment using more conventional methods of creating the image and leaves it alone for 700-800 years.


May I also suggest holding your breath that long?
 
2013-03-29 09:18:14 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Surool: dopirt: Surool: omeganuepsilon: Can we stick to the article at hand.  Jesus and his supposed shroud?

We kind of had a nice science thread going.

What science?

I found foetushead's essay quite an enjoyable read and look forward to more.  The science revolved around the hows and whys of carbon dating.  It too was a nice read. We were also treated to a fallacy of the excluded middle where the statement that either Iesus magically rose through the fabric of the shroud, scorching it on the way ( ana/kata in all directions, by the way), or that the 11th century forger had access to computers and ultraviolet lasers was offered as proof that it had to be Iesus.

Call me back when somebody performs an experiment using more conventional methods of creating the image and leaves it alone for 700-800 years.

May I also suggest holding your breath that long?


Suggest away.
 
2013-03-29 09:24:45 PM  

Surool: dopirt: Surool: omeganuepsilon: Can we stick to the article at hand.  Jesus and his supposed shroud?

We kind of had a nice science thread going.

What science?

I found foetushead's essay quite an enjoyable read and look forward to more.  The science revolved around the hows and whys of carbon dating.  It too was a nice read. We were also treated to a fallacy of the excluded middle where the statement that either Iesus magically rose through the fabric of the shroud, scorching it on the way ( ana/kata in all directions, by the way), or that the 11th century forger had access to computers and ultraviolet lasers was offered as proof that it had to be Iesus.

Call me back when somebody performs an experiment using more conventional methods of creating the image and leaves it alone for 700-800 years.


Scorched natural fibre certainly can last many millennia.  I doubt it was a novel technique. In 700-800 years someone will be arguing that the only way this shroud could have been created was through the molecular printing technology of that future day.
 
2013-03-29 09:26:28 PM  

dopirt: molecular printing technology of that future day.


Heh, i'm just wrapping up Diamond Age
/getting a kick
 
2013-03-29 09:38:12 PM  

omeganuepsilon: fetushead: And you actually think that happened because a book

Can we stick to the article at hand.  Jesus and his supposed shroud?

We kind of had a nice science thread going.


I addressed the issue in a way I thought fitting -  by showing why the argument for the shroud to be real starts off as fallacious because one first has to believe Jesus was truly a demigod or "son" of god because a book says so. Then, I explained how science works as compared to religion and gave examples of why people hold on to such beliefs even in the face of evidence to the contrary. I provided other examples of similar belief systems.

I suppose I should have explained that there are a myriad of suppositions that need to be taken as fact before you can even begin to discuss the shroud's authenticity - that god exists, that the bible is true and is not suspect, that Jesus was god's son and had divine powers that manifested in miracles he performed, that he was crucified and buried and covered with a shroud, that he respawned, that this event left an impression on the shroud through some magical or miraculous means, that the shroud was kept safe for two thousand years, and that the shroud held up as being the one Jesus was buried isn't a fake. These suppositions need to be dealt with first...
 
2013-03-29 10:14:32 PM  

T.rex:  most altheist (sic) historians still can admit that Jesus was person who actually existed.


Name three.
 
2013-03-29 10:23:41 PM  

fetushead: Also, a large portion of the Christian dogma was decided upon a group of people convened by Constantine I in 325 AD known as the First Council of Nicaea which greatly influenced which accounts were eventually canonized and included in the book you know today


Actually, I read on the wikipedia page that they didn't really choose the gospels. I always thought they did, and perhaps they really did, but the wiki page says otherwise. At least it did about a week ago when I read it.
 
2013-03-29 10:30:03 PM  

fetushead: These suppositions need to be dealt with first...


Whatever floats your boat I guess.   I don't see it that way.

Won't work with a true believer any more than you can just walk up to them and say "God doesn't exist" and have them believe that out of hand.

As with any great construct, it's most efficient to do a little work on the support structure and let it collapse.  When you just try to bulldoze the whole thing it doesn't work so well and you end up with a broken bulldozer.

With our approach, you don't have to get them to stop believing in magic.  If you can convince them that the particulars all around are wrong, then they find themselves with no need to Believe here.  You're training them to let go AND to think rationally, in the end, everyone wins.
 
2013-03-29 11:55:25 PM  

GeneralJim: frepnog: That is the only reason the "controversy" continues. It is a medieval fake. Once again, anyone that says otherwise is either a liar or a fool.Really?  So, you have faith that medieval forgers had computers and UV lasers to manufacture relics.  I'd say that makes YOU a liar or a fool.


people.virginia.edu

Interesting article (and thread) but you're falling into this fallacy. Because something similar to the shroud  can be created with a UV laser and computers, does not mean that the shroud was created by a similar mechanism.
 
2013-03-29 11:57:11 PM  

sxacho: fetushead: Also, a large portion of the Christian dogma was decided upon a group of people convened by Constantine I in 325 AD known as the First Council of Nicaea which greatly influenced which accounts were eventually canonized and included in the book you know today

Actually, I read on the wikipedia page that they didn't really choose the gospels. I always thought they did, and perhaps they really did, but the wiki page says otherwise. At least it did about a week ago when I read it.


Correct. What I said was that the dogmas that they decided on (Christ's divinity, etc) greatly influenced which accounts were eventually included in the bible. They established the framework that the religion was eventually constructed on.

omeganuepsilon:

Won't work with a true believer any more than you can just walk up to them and say "God doesn't exist" and have them believe that out of hand.

As with any great construct, it's most efficient to do a little work on the support structure and let it collapse.  When you just try to bulldoze the whole thing it doesn't work so well and you end up with a broken bulldozer.

With our approach, you don't have to get them to stop believing in magic.  If you can convince them that the particulars all around are wrong, then they find themselves with no need to Believe here.  You're training them to let go AND to think rationally, in the end, everyone wins.


I definitely see the logic in your approach and agree with it on a fundamental level. However, convincing a True Believer of anything antithetical to their established (and perhaps psychologically necessary) belief system is an uphill battle any way you slice it. Introduction of rational thought can be tricky, especially when dealing with years of indoctrination by a particular ideology. I suppose my thinking is that if you start with the basics you can trump any future circular arguments. Nothing is more annoying than the following type of exchange:

Person 1: How do you know your god is real?
Person 2: My holy book says so.
Person 1: How do you know your holy book is correct?
Person 2: It was written by god.
Person 1: How do you know your holy book was written by god?
Person 2: My holy book says so.

No one argument can stand on its own without invoking the others, which in turn cannot stand on their own, etc.
 
2013-03-30 12:16:36 AM  

fetushead: However, convincing a True Believer of anything antithetical to their established (and perhaps psychologically necessary) belief system is an uphill battle any way you slice it.


Well, I do profess that I don't try to sway the True Believer, by definition that's impossible.

It's the audience at large, the undecided, that we really have the opportunity to catch.

If we debunk each and every topic quickly and thoroughly, do so cleanly and efficiently without getting too deep into it.  Even if we win over people who aren't great on thinking but think," Damn, I'm getting on the smart bus!" I'll call it a win.  It also serves for a better PR route as it's somewhat less aggressive and offensive as a whole.

Plus, educating the audience at large, and a little self enrichment along the way, that's my main function(aside from the obvious, which is entertaining myself).  I'll share what I know, and further read others and research if needed.

I'm all for diggin' deep in a religious thread, as it were, just don't see it as such here.  We've got tangible evidence that is by all accounts, irrelevant to the book.  Something physical to discuss, that's farking rare!

That's an assumption though I suppose.  The shroud of turin as is, is not in the book, correct?(aside from saying "and the body was lain in a shroud" or something)  You'd think something like that would be detailed....IF it were around at the time, an image like that would be a pretty big deal.

/of course that doesn't disqualify someone making one according to spec afterwards if it were in the book
 
2013-03-30 12:41:37 AM  

weirdneighbour: Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x400]
Not sure about that, this guy might be a fit.


Of all the Jesus'; Buddy Jesus is my favorite.
 
2013-03-30 02:01:14 AM  

s2s2s2: Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.

No. Because if it was painted, it wouldn't render a 3d image when scanned.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 330x330]

Those shrouds weren't pressed down like your supposition requires.


OK, let us assume that the image is real, where is the proof that the person depicted is in fact jesus?  Hmm?
 
2013-03-30 02:01:35 AM  

colon_pow:

if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.
Additionally, I would say Jesus was the most influential person in history.
 
2013-03-30 02:05:00 AM  

s2s2s2: Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.

No. Because if it was painted, it wouldn't render a 3d image when scanned.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 330x330]

Those shrouds weren't pressed down like your supposition requires.


By the way, there available software that lets any turn a 2D image into a 3D one.  And, by 2D I mean images that are not encoded with 3D elevation data.  So, that lovely green image you posted, it could have been made from any 2D image.
 
2013-03-30 02:09:41 AM  

rpm:

colon_pow: In fact, it is often said there is as much evidence for an historical Jesus as there is for the existence of a great many other historical figures

Yes, yes it is.

And it is wrong

As may be -- but the author of that piece believes that there was a historical Jesus, and that there is enough evidence to prove it.
 
2013-03-30 02:11:38 AM  

ReverendJynxed: Surool: colon_pow: Ed Grubermann: colon_pow: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.

are claimed to have seen him afterwards. Claims are not proof.

ever seen a court room?  eye witnesses are powerful evidence.

Actually, the existance of the eyewitnesses is merely a claim at this point. Remember... the Bible is the claim, and can not be used as proof of itself.

So we haven't gone to mars with probes and rovers. After all we cannot take the word of NASA and the video THEY produce cannot be used as proof itself.


Not too bright, eh Rev?
 
2013-03-30 02:15:17 AM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet:

Setting aside the dubious historicity of their writings, that's four out of how many hundreds or thousands of supposed witnesses? And those four would be rather biased, too. That'd be like 9/11 only being witnessed by a dozen neo-cons.

Those hundreds or thousands of people were impressed enough to start a church essentially worshiping him.  That should count for something. "Totally bollocks, but let's get together next Sunday for a service. I've never seen a lion close up." Not likely.
 
2013-03-30 02:15:33 AM  

colon_pow: kobrakai: Great. You proved it's Jesus. Now prove Jesus performed a single miracle and I might pay attention.

rising from the dead is a pretty nice miracle.  hundreds of eye-witnesses saw him afterwards.


Name these witnesses.  Now, prove that they not only actually lived but did in fact see jesus.  Now, prove that jesus live.  Prove that he was killed.  Prove that he was put in a tomb.  Prove that the person killed was in fact the same person who was supposed seen by these witnesses.

Also, you must believe in UFOs, right?  After all, there have been thousands of eye-witnesses that have seen them.
 
2013-03-30 02:16:21 AM  

Mock26: s2s2s2: Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.

No. Because if it was painted, it wouldn't render a 3d image when scanned.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 330x330]

Those shrouds weren't pressed down like your supposition requires.

By the way, there available software that lets any turn a 2D image into a 3D one.  And, by 2D I mean images that are not encoded with 3D elevation data.  So, that lovely green image you posted, it could have been made from any 2D image.




It was made prior to the existence of such capabilities, and it is a scan that rendered a 3D image without trying to.

I'm still not assuming anything about whose image, or validity.
 
2013-03-30 02:22:01 AM  

s2s2s2: It was made prior to the existence of such capabilities, and it is a scan that rendered a 3D image without trying to.


Wow, just, wow.

You really seem to know nothing about technology, and therefore half of the words you're using.
 
2013-03-30 02:25:06 AM  

omeganuepsilon:

Anyways, it's like cooking a burger. You cook it slow, it cooks through, you cook it fast, the outside burns the inside hardly warms up(if you remove it fast enough.

No, not really.  There aren't any "all the way through" bits, although there would HAVE to be, where the cloth touched the (originally typed "douched" to match your "raped") metal parts.  That's the oddity -- the char is only a few molecules thick.  Look at the 2011 Fark article of the thread I link to above; they explain the whole thing rather well.
 
2013-03-30 02:29:22 AM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet:

Yet still not actually proven to have happened! And do you think your green text makes you important or something?

No, I think it's something ELSE that makes me important, just like your black text doesn't make you wrong.  Now, what proof do we have of most ANYTHING from 2KYA?  Waddayah want, video?

 
2013-03-30 02:37:41 AM  

omeganuepsilon: s2s2s2: It was made prior to the existence of such capabilities, and it is a scan that rendered a 3D image without trying to.

Wow, just, wow.

You really seem to know nothing about technology, and therefore half of the words you're using.


Technology? Like plows n shiat?
 
2013-03-30 02:39:50 AM  
This was one of several shrouds that existed.  It was business.  How do you get pilgrims to come on journeys to your church?  There was like three heads of St. John or something.  Sometimes multiples of the same artifact were declared authentic by the Catholic church.  Bishop Pierre d'Arcis of that diocese said it was fake and that his predecessor who was Bishop of the area when it showed up had also said it was fake and even questioned the artist who made it.

Every year around Easter right-wing news media drag it out and play this stupid game of "new evidence suggests it IS real!"  Even if you are Christian, you'd have to be a drooling retard to believe this crap.
 
2013-03-30 02:41:32 AM  

omeganuepsilon: s2s2s2: It was made prior to the existence of such capabilities, and it is a scan that rendered a 3D image without trying to.

Wow, just, wow.

You really seem to know nothing about technology, and therefore half of the words you're using.


TAKE 2: You know, the word render predates computers, right?
 
2013-03-30 02:44:14 AM  

burning_bridge: Every year around Easter right-wing news media drag it out and play this stupid game of "new evidence suggests it IS real!"


Well, in their defense the shroud IS real. They're just supporting the unproven position that it belonged to Jesus as opposed to Guy de la Someone
 
2013-03-30 02:45:27 AM  

Ed Grubermann:

Okay. Let's ask him. Where is he? Prove that he actually existed. Then we'll talk about his supposed resurrection.

Don't expect a Salon report, or a video, or a news report from CNN.  Almost two thousand years is a LONG time.  Cold cases die in orders of magnitude less time.


Also, this article, which agrees with many others...
 
2013-03-30 02:49:16 AM  

omeganuepsilon:

Wasn't a new idea, and Da Vinci loved such gizmo's, even wrote about(or drew) this one in his own works. It's not an impossible thing as you suggest.
It's not impossible on the basis of camera obscura, although unlikely, but on the basis that there is no pigment, paint or photochemical, making up the image.   It's char marks.
 
2013-03-30 02:53:19 AM  

doglover: burning_bridge: Every year around Easter right-wing news media drag it out and play this stupid game of "new evidence suggests it IS real!"

Well, in their defense the shroud IS real. They're just supporting the unproven position that it belonged to Jesus as opposed to Guy de la Someone


...well played.  You win this round.
 
2013-03-30 02:54:21 AM  

omeganuepsilon:

GeneralJim: wiredroach: Doesn't require magical resurrection Jesus beams at all. Just means that the pigment on the shroud is proportional to depth, rather than a static depiction of a fixed light source falling on a 3-dimensional face as in most paintings or drawings.

A nice hypothesis -- but there's no pigment on the Shroud.

Coloration then?  There is a visible image correct?

Getting pedantic now...

Pedantic is okay....  The coloration is due to the OUTSIDE few molecules of the Shroud fabric being charred, while the inside of the threads remain unaffected.  Bizarre.  Read the subject article in THIS THREAD.
 
2013-03-30 02:55:24 AM  

GeneralJim: That's the oddity -- the char is only a few molecules thick.


I'll take your word on it, I'm damn near done for tonite.

That would be indicative of a flash. Flash of godly power, or flash of heat(which was my point).  Doesn't take much to barely brown cloth, so the heat need not be excessive.

That's the thing with cloth, it's a great insulator, it doesn't conduct heat well.  It's not like touching a marker to it and it bleeds, heat stays fairly well contained to the closest parts of fiber.  I've seen pot holders in my house that have fainter tints from burning than what's on the shroud.(always helps to check an actual picture of it that's un altered for contrast and such as well, meant to state that for general purposes earlier). Same for wood cutting boards that sub in for a pot holder.  In fact, it's really hard to get these things to burn through.

Hell, iron marks on a nice white shirt, that's something most of us have seen, you can do this at home.  Get a fabric of the same/similar material and try it for yourself.  It's easy to do if that's the goal, you don't need really fine precision timing, the heat transfer is slow.  After just a couple attempts you'll be a pro at making ghostly iron imprints like a pro.
 
2013-03-30 02:57:23 AM  

Ed Grubermann:

GeneralJim: frepnog: That is the only reason the "controversy" continues. It is a medieval fake. Once again, anyone that says otherwise is either a liar or a fool.

Really?  So, you have faith that medieval forgers had computers and UV lasers to manufacture relics.  I'd say that makes YOU a liar or a fool.

Do you always misrepresent what other people are saying? Computers and lasers are not needed to create the shroud.

Some Italian scientists would disagree with you.
 
2013-03-30 03:00:48 AM  

Corvus:

GeneralJim, shroud of Turin believer and global warming denier.

I think that says it all really.

"Global warming denier?"   Really?  I'm sure human activity IS warming the planet -- just not as much as the warmer alarmists are claiming; and the science, along with the planet itself, are backing up my position.  That's denial?   That's why you fail.
 
2013-03-30 03:05:02 AM  

wiredroach:

GeneralJim: A nice hypothesis -- but there's no pigment on the Shroud.

Ok, then you've proven your case. Clearly it was caused by Jesus.

All right then, thread over.

Actually, scientifically, I'm not attempting to prove a cause. The way one goes about this is to eliminate hypotheses. The formation of the image falsifies the hypothesis that the Shroud was created by medieval forgers. What's your NEXT hypothesis?
 
2013-03-30 03:10:47 AM  
The Vatican will NEVER vouch for it's authenticity... If it were later proven to be a fake, they would never live it down, and their "power" and authority would be questioned too much...

Besides, fake or real, it obviously gives some people much to do in order to get the shroud back into the mainstream media every stinking year about this time...
 
2013-03-30 03:11:49 AM  

fetushead: Do yourself a favor - learn to be skeptical.


sokology.com

Oh, you're serious?  Let me laugh even harder!

 
2013-03-30 03:18:21 AM  

dopirt:

Scorched natural fibre certainly can last many millennia. I doubt it was a novel technique. In 700-800 years someone will be arguing that the only way this shroud could have been created was through the molecular printing technology of that future day.
That might well be able to make a similar image, but molecular printing technology was as unavailable to medieval forgers as were UV lasers and 3-D rendering computers.
 
2013-03-30 03:19:51 AM  
Shroud of Turin: SICK BURN
 
2013-03-30 03:25:23 AM  

fetushead:

No one argument can stand on its own without invoking the others, which in turn cannot stand on their own, etc.

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.

Bertrand Russell

 
2013-03-30 03:28:25 AM  

omeganuepsilon:

That's an assumption though I suppose. The shroud of turin as is, is not in the book, correct?(aside from saying "and the body was lain in a shroud" or something) You'd think something like that would be detailed....IF it were around at the time, an image like that would be a pretty big deal.

Unless the authors of the accounts knew that if was of no importance to the message.
 
2013-03-30 03:34:29 AM  

Mock26:

Also, you must believe in UFOs, right? After all, there have been thousands of eye-witnesses that have seen them.
Well, *I* am not convinced that UFOs are real...  Or, to phrase it more accurately, I don't believe any UFOs have been adequately identified as extra-terrestrial spacecraft.  But, people ARE seeing something, and I believe they don't know what they are seeing, so they ARE actually UFOs.  You know, "UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS."  That's not a problem -- the problem comes when you identify it with insufficient evidence.
 
2013-03-30 03:37:42 AM  

burning_bridge:

This was one of several shrouds that existed.  It was business.  How do you get pilgrims to come on journeys to your church?  There was like three heads of St. John or something.  Sometimes multiples of the same artifact were declared authentic by the Catholic church.  Bishop Pierre d'Arcis of that diocese said it was fake and that his predecessor who was Bishop of the area when it showed up had also said it was fake and even questioned the artist who made it.
There are hundreds of documented real estate scams.  Therefore, using your logic, real estate does not exist.
 
2013-03-30 03:42:30 AM  

omeganuepsilon:

That would be indicative of a flash. Flash of godly power, or flash of heat(which was my point). Doesn't take much to barely brown cloth, so the heat need not be excessive.
According to the Italian scientists (IIRC) they tried that, including a laser -- generated too much heat, which was conducted too far into the threads to make the same kind of image.  They switched to a UV laser, and were able to duplicate the process -- for the first time, I might add.
 
2013-03-30 03:54:35 AM  

GeneralJim: burning_bridge: This was one of several shrouds that existed.  It was business.  How do you get pilgrims to come on journeys to your church?  There was like three heads of St. John or something.  Sometimes multiples of the same artifact were declared authentic by the Catholic church.  Bishop Pierre d'Arcis of that diocese said it was fake and that his predecessor who was Bishop of the area when it showed up had also said it was fake and even questioned the artist who made it.

There are hundreds of documented real estate scams.  Therefore, using your logic, real estate does not exist.


Wow, that's so far away from being an actual valid argument that the light from valid arguments would take millions of years to reach what you just said.  A real estate scam isn't based on the idea that real estate does or does not exist but whether the person offering it actually owns it or is lying about the details of it.  This stupid piece of cloth doesn't need to be real for you to believe that your sky father is actually there.  It's called faith, try having some.
 
2013-03-30 04:04:29 AM  

burning_bridge:

GeneralJim: burning_bridge: This was one of several shrouds that existed.  It was business.  How do you get pilgrims to come on journeys to your church?  There was like three heads of St. John or something.  Sometimes multiples of the same artifact were declared authentic by the Catholic church.  Bishop Pierre d'Arcis of that diocese said it was fake and that his predecessor who was Bishop of the area when it showed up had also said it was fake and even questioned the artist who made it.

There are hundreds of documented real estate scams.  Therefore, using your logic, real estate does not exist.

Wow, that's so far away from being an actual valid argument that the light from valid arguments would take millions of years to reach what you just said.  A real estate scam isn't based on the idea that real estate does or does not exist but whether the person offering it actually owns it or is lying about the details of it.  This stupid piece of cloth doesn't need to be real for you to believe that your sky father is actually there.  It's called faith, try having some.
Okay, how about you try to explain why your "The Shroud is not real, there were lots of religious forgeries" is different from my example, where what is in question is the DEAL, not the existence of real estate, which, granted, I should have said.
 
2013-03-30 05:47:48 AM  

GeneralJim: burning_bridge: GeneralJim: burning_bridge: This was one of several shrouds that existed.  It was business.  How do you get pilgrims to come on journeys to your church?  There was like three heads of St. John or something.  Sometimes multiples of the same artifact were declared authentic by the Catholic church.  Bishop Pierre d'Arcis of that diocese said it was fake and that his predecessor who was Bishop of the area when it showed up had also said it was fake and even questioned the artist who made it.

There are hundreds of documented real estate scams.  Therefore, using your logic, real estate does not exist.

Wow, that's so far away from being an actual valid argument that the light from valid arguments would take millions of years to reach what you just said.  A real estate scam isn't based on the idea that real estate does or does not exist but whether the person offering it actually owns it or is lying about the details of it.  This stupid piece of cloth doesn't need to be real for you to believe that your sky father is actually there.  It's called faith, try having some.

Okay, how about you try to explain why your "The Shroud is not real, there were lots of religious forgeries" is different from my example, where what is in question is the DEAL, not the existence of real estate, which, granted, I should have said.


Oh I see, I didn't present evidence about the shroud itself.  What, all the info everybody already posted here isn't enough?  I could copy and paste it all again for you if you'd like.  It's a fake.  If you had faith, you wouldn't need it to be real.  It could be the obvious forgery it is and god would still be god.  But you need proof, it seems.
 
2013-03-30 06:22:59 AM  

GeneralJim: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Setting aside the dubious historicity of their writings, that's four out of how many hundreds or thousands of supposed witnesses? And those four would be rather biased, too. That'd be like 9/11 only being witnessed by a dozen neo-cons.
Those hundreds or thousands of people were impressed enough to start a church essentially worshiping him.  That should count for something. "Totally bollocks, but let's get together next Sunday for a service. I've never seen a lion close up." Not likely.


Worked for Jim Jones and David Koresh. New cults pop up all the time. The members' beliefs don't prove anything.
 
2013-03-30 08:26:18 AM  

GeneralJim: That's only ONE of the problems with the forgery idea.


So, you don't just belie the entire field of climatology is a scam. It would be weird if you were otherwise totally sane, so I'm kinda glad to find out that no; you believe other obviously insane bullshiat as well as that. Cool.

Do you also think the moon landings were fake? do you believe in alien abductions?
 
2013-03-30 08:46:24 AM  

Gunther: GeneralJim: That's only ONE of the problems with the forgery idea.

So, you don't just belie the entire field of climatology is a scam. It would be weird if you were otherwise totally sane, so I'm kinda glad to find out that no; you believe other obviously insane bullshiat as well as that. Cool.

Do you also think the moon landings were fake? do you believe in alien abductions?


He believes in advanced truth.
 
2013-03-30 09:23:24 AM  

GeneralJim: burning_bridge: GeneralJim: burning_bridge: This was one of several shrouds that existed.  It was business.  How do you get pilgrims to come on journeys to your church?  There was like three heads of St. John or something.  Sometimes multiples of the same artifact were declared authentic by the Catholic church.  Bishop Pierre d'Arcis of that diocese said it was fake and that his predecessor who was Bishop of the area when it showed up had also said it was fake and even questioned the artist who made it.

There are hundreds of documented real estate scams.  Therefore, using your logic, real estate does not exist.

Wow, that's so far away from being an actual valid argument that the light from valid arguments would take millions of years to reach what you just said.  A real estate scam isn't based on the idea that real estate does or does not exist but whether the person offering it actually owns it or is lying about the details of it.  This stupid piece of cloth doesn't need to be real for you to believe that your sky father is actually there.  It's called faith, try having some.Okay, how about you try to explain why your "The Shroud is not real, there were lots of religious forgeries" is different from my example, where what is in question is the DEAL, not the existence of real estate, which, granted, I should have said.


If you look at the fingers on the hands, they don't look right.

Even in the middle ages, a clever fellow would not have made a shroud using a painting process. It was made using a bas relief sculpture with cloth draped on it. and some process involving heat and chemicals. The forger, though clever, had difficulty getting the anatomy exactly right.

Of course, whether its real or not is particularly important and has no bearing on whether a shroud existed.
 
2013-03-30 09:24:27 AM  
I meant to say its not important that this shroud is fake.
 
2013-03-30 09:38:36 AM  

GeneralJim: wiredroach: Doesn't require magical resurrection Jesus beams at all. Just means that the pigment on the shroud is proportional to depth, rather than a static depiction of a fixed light source falling on a 3-dimensional face as in most paintings or drawings.A nice hypothesis -- but there's no pigment on the Shroud.


That is a false statement.  Red ochre is on the shroud.  This has been known for decades.
 
2013-03-30 10:00:19 AM  

Animatronik: Of course, whether its real or not is particularly important and has no bearing on whether a shroud existed.


I've always been unsure what shroud believers think happened.  It's kind of a leap to look at a bit of old cloth with a picture of a dead dude on it and go immediately to "This is an image of Jesus! And it must have been left by his dead body,despite the fact that dead bodies that are wrapped in cloth don't actually leave imprints on the cloth and certainly not clear pictures like this! Therefore this is proof that Jesus was magical!!"

I mean, that right there is a bizarre bit of reasoning:

Assume A caused B
B is not normally caused by A
Therefore A has caused B through magic.

It's not even circular reasoning, it's just... nonsense. It's equivalent to someone holding up an apple and saying "This apple is one of Jesus's fossilized turds! Turds aren't normally apples, therefore we have proof that Jesus was divine!"
 
2013-03-30 10:55:35 AM  

Gunther: It's equivalent to someone holding up an apple and saying "This apple is one of Jesus's fossilized turds! Turds aren't normally apples, therefore we have proof that Jesus was divine!"


imageshack.us

The Holy Turd!!!
 
2013-03-30 11:43:47 AM  

s2s2s2: Mock26: s2s2s2: Yakk: It's painted on, if the impression was made by draping it over a body it face would be distorted on the sides where it hung over the cheeks.

No. Because if it was painted, it wouldn't render a 3d image when scanned.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 330x330]

Those shrouds weren't pressed down like your supposition requires.

By the way, there available software that lets any turn a 2D image into a 3D one.  And, by 2D I mean images that are not encoded with 3D elevation data.  So, that lovely green image you posted, it could have been made from any 2D image.


It was made prior to the existence of such capabilities, and it is a scan that rendered a 3D image without trying to.

I'm still not assuming anything about whose image, or validity.

img.photobucket.com
 
rpm
2013-03-30 12:21:01 PM  

GeneralJim: No, I think it's something ELSE that makes me important, just like your black text doesn't make you wrong.  Now, what proof do we have of most ANYTHING from 2KYA?  Waddayah want, video?


Mutually independent corroborating accounts would be a start.
 
2013-03-30 05:45:38 PM  

GeneralJim: Those hundreds or thousands of people were impressed enough to start a church essentially worshiping him. That should count for something.


By that reasoning, Thor, Zeus, Osiris and Vishnu are every bit as real as Jesus.
 
2013-03-30 05:51:31 PM  

GeneralJim: The formation of the image falsifies the hypothesis that the Shroud was created by medieval forgers.


That's clearly not been ruled out. Depending on whose account you believe, there may or may not be deposition of iron oxide on the fabric, as opposed to an enzymatic process such as the Maillard reaction. In either case, the image could have an entirely prosaic cause consistent with 14th century forgers motivated by cash, which is a much stronger likelihood than the magical resurrection suntan that Shroud fans seem to espouse.
 
2013-03-30 06:17:56 PM  

GeneralJim: Those hundreds or thousands of people were impressed enough to start a church essentially worshiping him.


There is no evidence that there were instantly hundreds of thousands of christians immediately following the alleged crucifixion... not even in the bible.
 
rpm
2013-03-30 07:51:15 PM  

Surool: GeneralJim: Those hundreds or thousands of people were impressed enough to start a church essentially worshiping him.

There is no evidence that there were instantly hundreds of thousands of christians immediately following the alleged crucifixion... not even in the bible.


And by the same argument, John Frum is a god.
 
2013-03-30 08:09:44 PM  

wiredroach: Thor, Zeus, Osiris and Vishnu are every bit as real as Jesus.


Truth.
 
2013-03-31 12:50:03 AM  

wiredroach: GeneralJim: Those hundreds or thousands of people were impressed enough to start a church essentially worshiping him. That should count for something.

By that reasoning, Thor, Zeus, Osiris and Vishnu are every bit as real as Jesus.


Does Apollonius of Tyana count? Or does he not count because he actually provoked thought instead of stifling it?
 
2013-03-31 06:55:37 AM  

burning_bridge:

If you had faith, you wouldn't need it to be real. It could be the obvious forgery it is and god would still be god. But you need proof, it seems.

You're being a very choice ass.  It doesn't matter to me, other than being of historical interest, whether or not the Shroud is genuine.  If it's an "obvious forgery" as you suggest, how about you explain how medieval forgers charred only the outside of the fibers to make the 2-D image on the cloth, and how the image decodes easily into a 3-D image?

It appears to ME that you just assume that the Shroud is fake, because your faith requires it to be fake.  And, you don't even bother to read what has been posted.  Seriously, is that scientific?

 
2013-03-31 07:06:02 AM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet:

Worked for Jim Jones and David Koresh. New cults pop up all the time. The members' beliefs don't prove anything.
So, are you saying that Jim Jones and David Koresh didn't exist? Because it would be odd to have someone gather a large cult -- if they didn't exist.
 
2013-03-31 07:12:10 AM  

GeneralJim: If it's an "obvious forgery" as you suggest, how about you explain how medieval forgers charred only the outside of the fibers to make the 2-D image on the cloth, and how the image decodes easily into a 3-D image?


Ah, the old "argument from ignorance" - your average Farker isn't gonna know howmedieval forgers made fake relics like this, therefore it must be real.

Pathetic.
 
2013-03-31 07:25:31 AM  

Gunther:

GeneralJim: That's only ONE of the problems with the forgery idea.

So, you don't just belie the entire field of climatology is a scam. It would be weird if you were otherwise totally sane, so I'm kinda glad to find out that no; you believe other obviously insane bullshiat as well as that. Cool.

"Belie the entire field is a scam?"  English much?  I end up explaining this to some farktard in every climate thread, and it seems that we're using a Shroud thread for YOUR turn...   Listen up, Buttercup:

I agree with the entire process in climate science -- with the exception that the real scientists at the beginning got the atmospheric sensitivity to carbon dioxide way too high.  Humans ARE warming the planet with carbon dioxide.  If we double it -- which should take a bit over two centuries, at current rates, we will raise the temperature about 0.5 K, plus or minus a bit.  But that number is not politically useful -- nobody is going to panic over a half degree, and panic is needed to get people to give more power to government.

And, since the planet cannot have its income or credentials threatened, be bullied, OR be bribed, the U.N. has been unable to make it warm as the warmer alarmists are predicting.  In fact, it's not warming at all now, and hasn't been for a long time.  So, the handful of corrupt scientists - as I have often said, less than a dozen - are busy changing the historical records to make it LOOK like it has warmed more.  And, this isn't a wild conspiracy theory.  Anyone -- at least anyone not cognitively impaired -- can LOOK at what agencies have said in the past, and compare it with what they put out now, and see the effects of alteration of the data.

And, as to the Shroud, how do YOU explain that the image is one that was only duplicated a couple years ago, with UV lasers, and is a true 3-D image?

 
2013-03-31 07:30:00 AM  

Animatronik:

Even in the middle ages, a clever fellow would not have made a shroud using a painting process. It was made using a bas relief sculpture with cloth draped on it. and some process involving heat and chemicals. The forger, though clever, had difficulty getting the anatomy exactly right.
Have you checked the article from the thread I've linked a bunch of times above?  The image is NOT formed in any such way.  It is charred into the fibers, and only the outside of the fibers are charred.  Scientists were finally able to create that type of image a couple years ago -- and they did it by etching it with a UV laser.  That wasn't a standard forger's tool back in medieval times -- or NOW, for that matter.
 
2013-03-31 07:32:46 AM  

TheMysteriousStranger:

That is a false statement. Red ochre is on the shroud. This has been known for decades.
It doesn't matter.  The image is produced by charring.  Pay attention.  What's this, the 12th time?
 
2013-03-31 07:38:39 AM  

Gunther:

It's not even circular reasoning, it's just... nonsense. It's equivalent to someone holding up an apple and saying "This apple is one of Jesus's fossilized turds! Turds aren't normally apples, therefore we have proof that Jesus was divine!"

Don't blame others for your failures of cognition.  Think about it scientifically (yeah, right -- like you can do THAT).  One does NOT prove that it is the shroud used by Jesus -- but one CAN falsify the hypothesis that it was created by medieval forgers, which is the "consensus" of the closed-minded.  And, the shroud DOES do that, unless you assume that the medieval forgers had reasonably powerful computers, good graphics software, and UV lasers -- or similar, or more advanced equipment.
 
2013-03-31 07:42:46 AM  

wiredroach:

GeneralJim: Those hundreds or thousands of people were impressed enough to start a church essentially worshiping him. That should count for something.

By that reasoning, Thor, Zeus, Osiris and Vishnu are every bit as real as Jesus.

No, they have as much backing as God, or Jehovah.  Jesus was a real person, and the religion was started by people who traveled and lived with him.  That is not true of those you name. It is, however, rather similar to Buddhism.
 
2013-03-31 07:47:44 AM  

wiredroach:

GeneralJim: The formation of the image falsifies the hypothesis that the Shroud was created by medieval forgers.

That's clearly not been ruled out. Depending on whose account you believe, there may or may not be deposition of iron oxide on the fabric, as opposed to an enzymatic process such as the Maillard reaction. In either case, the image could have an entirely prosaic cause consistent with 14th century forgers motivated by cash, which is a much stronger likelihood than the magical resurrection suntan that Shroud fans seem to espouse.
No, that's not true.  It matters not if there is iron oxide, or a bit of pigment, or Rustoleum on the cloth -- the image is composed of threads which are charred on the OUTSIDE ONLY, not of pigment.
 
2013-03-31 07:53:19 AM  

Surool:

GeneralJim: Those hundreds or thousands of people were impressed enough to start a church essentially worshiping him.

There is no evidence that there were instantly hundreds of thousands of christians immediately following the alleged crucifixion... not even in the bible.

Who said they would have to be "instant" converts?  Nice goalpost move.  People who traveled with Jesus, and other witnesses, made it grow over time.
 
2013-03-31 07:57:26 AM  

GeneralJim: So, the handful of corrupt scientists - as I have often said, less than a dozen - are busy changing the historical records to make it LOOK like it has warmed more.  And, this isn't a wild conspiracy theory.


You believe that a dozen scientists are somehow rigging all the temperature records for the entire world... and you don't think that sounds like a wild conspiracy theory. Do you even realize how insane you sound? This is perhaps the most insanely retarded conspiracy theory ever - there's tens of thousands of climate scientists, researchers and environmentalists who would notice if the research changed; are they all in on it too? Because they'd have to be for your conspiracy theory to make sense.

GeneralJim: And, the shroud DOES do that, unless you assume that the medieval forgers had reasonably powerful computers, good graphics software, and UV lasers -- or similar, or more advanced equipment.


Or that they used one of the dozen or so possible methods listed on the wikipedia page that could have produced it. But no, since there's disagreement on which method the forgers used (there are tens of thousands of fake relics dating from the same period, so assuming it was created by forgers is hardly a leap of logic), you immediately leap to "Jesus must have given off a burst of magical radiation when he ascended into heaven that painted a picture of the European dude that medieval Christians thought he looked like on the shroud he was buried in!"... because that's clearly the logical, scientific conclusion.

Again, I have to ask: do you even realize how insane you sound? Doesn't it ever bother you that literally every reply you get in Fark threads is from people who think you're farking crazy?
 
2013-03-31 10:13:53 AM  

GeneralJim: wiredroach: GeneralJim: Those hundreds or thousands of people were impressed enough to start a church essentially worshiping him. That should count for something.

By that reasoning, Thor, Zeus, Osiris and Vishnu are every bit as real as Jesus.
No, they have as much backing as God, or Jehovah.  Jesus was a real person, and the religion was started by people who traveled and lived with him.  That is not true of those you name. It is, however, rather similar to Buddhism.


bullshiat.  100 percent unequivocal bullshiat.  Paul (arguably but most likely) started Christianity, and by his own admission he never met or even laid eyes on "Jesus".
 
2013-03-31 10:14:55 AM  

Gunther:

GeneralJim: If it's an "obvious forgery" as you suggest, how about you explain how medieval forgers charred only the outside of the fibers to make the 2-D image on the cloth, and how the image decodes easily into a 3-D image?

Ah, the old "argument from ignorance" - your average Farker isn't gonna know howmedieval forgers made fake relics like this, therefore it must be real.

Pathetic.

Are you REALLY this dumb, or are you just trolling? Not knowing what an argument from ignorance is is understandable -- from you, anyway.  If the shroud is a forgery, the image has to have been made in a way the forgers could do.  There was no way for medieval forgers to create the image.  Therefore, they did NOT create the image.  That's pretty freaking straightforward.  The first people to create an image like that on the Shroud of Turin were Italian scientists a couple years ago.  They had to use UV lasers to do it.

 
2013-03-31 10:41:38 AM  

GeneralJim: burning_bridge: If you had faith, you wouldn't need it to be real. It could be the obvious forgery it is and god would still be god. But you need proof, it seems.
You're being a very choice ass.  It doesn't matter to me, other than being of historical interest, whether or not the Shroud is genuine.  If it's an "obvious forgery" as you suggest, how about you explain how medieval forgers charred only the outside of the fibers to make the 2-D image on the cloth, and how the image decodes easily into a 3-D image?
It appears to ME that you just assume that the Shroud is fake, because your faith requires it to be fake.  And, you don't even bother to read what has been posted.  Seriously, is that scientific?


There is nothing special or magical or divine required in the 2D image to allow it to be scanned and rendered as a 3D image.  It is the rendering software that does this!  And it can do this to ANY 2-dimensional.  There is no such thing as 3-dimensional coding within a 2-d image.
 
2013-03-31 10:45:59 AM  

Gunther:

You believe that a dozen scientists are somehow rigging all the temperature records for the entire world... and you don't think that sounds like a wild conspiracy theory. Do you even realize how insane you sound? This is perhaps the most insanely retarded conspiracy theory ever - there's tens of thousands of climate scientists, researchers and environmentalists who would notice if the research changed; are they all in on it too? Because they'd have to be for your conspiracy theory to make sense.

Thank you for once again demonstrating your prodigious ignorance.  Let me show you what you wish to ignore....

First, watch how NOAA's temperatures change over time:

climate-skeptic.typepad.com


 

And, here is what has happened to NASA's temperatures, as shown by their releases:


jonova.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-03-31 10:48:47 AM  

Gunther:

Doesn't it ever bother you that literally every reply you get in Fark threads is from people who think you're farking crazy?
No, not as long as they are as stupid as you are, and they generally are. Well, close, anyway.
 
2013-03-31 10:53:54 AM  

Gunther:

Doesn't it ever bother you that literally every reply you get in Fark threads is from people who think you're farking crazy?
Oh, yeah, and you're either lying, full of shiat, or both...  when you say the above, you're just begging to be proven wrong.  So, check just this ONE POST that proves you wrong.  And, even in this thread alone, it is nowhere near "literally every reply."
 
2013-03-31 11:06:35 AM  

Gunther:

Or that they used one of the dozen or so possible methods listed on the wikipedia page that could have produced it.
Seeing as you are a lying sack, I'm going to need you to point out what you mean here.
 
2013-03-31 11:13:40 AM  

frepnog:

bullshiat. 100 percent unequivocal bullshiat. Paul (arguably but most likely) started Christianity, and by his own admission he never met or even laid eyes on "Jesus".
So, you're a bit logic challenged, eh?  Okay, a step at a time.  Saul of Tarsus had his conversion on the road to Damascus.  The conversion?  He went from a persecutor of the new Church, to probably its most devoted fan.  If he was persecuting the Church, he was NOT the one to form it, now, was he?
 
2013-03-31 11:21:25 AM  
GeneralJim is the second coming of Bevets.
 
2013-03-31 11:22:57 AM  

Mock26:

There is nothing special or magical or divine required in the 2D image to allow it to be scanned and rendered as a 3D image. It is the rendering software that does this! And it can do this to ANY 2-dimensional. There is no such thing as 3-dimensional coding within a 2-d image.

Wrong again -- but at least you manage to be cocksure while spouting error.  Scientists tried to create the same effect in the 1970s, and could not.  They got a 3-D image, all right, but the image looked like a bunch of cardboard cutouts stacked on each other.  From the Wikipedia entry:

In 1976 Pete Schumacher, John Jackson and Eric Jumper analysed a photograph of the shroud image using a VP8 Image Analyzer. They found that, unlike any photograph they had analyzed, the shroud image has the property of decoding into a 3-dimensional image, when the darker parts of the image are interpreted to be those features of the man that were closest to the shroud and the lighter areas of the image those features that were farthest. The researchers could not replicate the effect when they attempted to transfer similar images using techniques of block print, engravings, a hot statue, and bas-relief.

 
2013-03-31 11:27:26 AM  

mooseyfate:

GeneralJim is the second coming of Bevets.
It's the time for miracles.  Try sticking your head up a rabbit's ass, and checking for eggs. Happy Easter!
 
2013-03-31 11:40:43 AM  

GeneralJim: So, check just this ONE POST that proves you wrong.


No, you asserted that heat could not singe one side of a material or fiber.

I was contradicting that with factual information.
 
2013-03-31 11:40:46 AM  

GeneralJim: mooseyfate: GeneralJim is the second coming of Bevets.It's the time for miracles.  Try sticking your head up a rabbit's ass, and checking for eggs. Happy Easter!


Rabbits and eggs. Yet another stupid thing Christians came up with. Seems the only thing Christianity is actually good at us getting people to believe the stupidest, most ridiculously obvious fake bullshiat in the history if man.

/no really, he caused the Red Sea to part
//seriously, he walked on water
///I shiat you not, she was a married virgin and she gave birth to the son of God
//Okay, for realsies this time, I'm totally serious: Jesus ascended to heaven through this body-bag. Check it out and leave donations to his glory at the door, I'll make sure he gets it
/Christians will believe anything. People in general will believe anything
//Just look at Scientology
 
2013-03-31 12:26:52 PM  

omeganuepsilon:

GeneralJim: So, check just this ONE POST that proves you wrong.

No, you asserted that heat could not singe one side of a material or fiber.

I was contradicting that with factual information.

Erm, my post was to Gunther. Silly mistake, or outed alt? If it's an alt, it's one of the great trolls of all time.

But, since you bring it up, it's not the "one side," it's the "just a few molecules thick" that's tough to do.  Check the Wikipedia entry on the Shroud.  The conclusions are all in the HF radiative arena.  Nobody seems willing to take a guess at the CAUSE of the radiation, though....

 
2013-03-31 12:27:49 PM  

GeneralJim: Let me show you what you wish to ignore....


Your pair of unsourced gif images have totally convinced now that NOAA and NASA are faking their data as part of some worldwide conspiracy theory. Oh wait; that's stupid and you're still crazy.

GeneralJim: even in this thread alone, it is nowhere near "literally every reply."

The word "literally" has been used as an intensifier for well over a hundred years and that usage is recognized by literally every major dictionary. For instance, here's the Oxford, Merriam-Webster. and wiktionary definitions. So you're not only a grammar nazi, you're a really, really crappy grammar nazi.

GeneralJim: Gunther: Or that they used one of the dozen or so possible methods listed on the wikipedia page that could have produced it.

Seeing as you are a lying sack, I'm going to need you to point out what you mean here.


Here's the wiki page. Note how people aren't sure how it was produced but there's a dozen or so possibilities listed. Note that for most the argument against is something like "However, according to Fanti and Moroni, this does not reproduce many special features of the Shroud at microscopic level", or "the technique itself seems unable to produce an image having the most critical Turin Shroud image characteristics" or some other criticism that boils down to "these guys that have devoted their lives to trying to prove the shroud is real don't buy it but aren't going into specifics".

Oh, and before you jump all over the "people aren't sure how it was produced " thing; it's an incredibly fragile piece of cloth that's hundreds of years old and is in the possession of very protective owners who don't want it to undergo rigorous and potentially damaging testing. That we don't know the specifics of how it was made isn't surprising, and isn't reason to assume divine farking intervention.
 
2013-03-31 12:29:34 PM  

omeganuepsilon:

I was contradicting that with factual information.
Oh, I get it now...  I was using your post as an illustration of a post in which I was not being called crazy, for Gunther's benefit.  Sorry for the mix-up.
 
2013-03-31 12:41:16 PM  

GeneralJim: Mock26: There is nothing special or magical or divine required in the 2D image to allow it to be scanned and rendered as a 3D image. It is the rendering software that does this! And it can do this to ANY 2-dimensional. There is no such thing as 3-dimensional coding within a 2-d image.
Wrong again -- but at least you manage to be cocksure while spouting error.  Scientists tried to create the same effect in the 1970s, and could not.  They got a 3-D image, all right, but the image looked like a bunch of cardboard cutouts stacked on each other.  From the Wikipedia entry:In 1976 Pete Schumacher, John Jackson and Eric Jumper analysed a photograph of the shroud image using a VP8 Image Analyzer. They found that, unlike any photograph they had analyzed, the shroud image has the property of decoding into a 3-dimensional image, when the darker parts of the image are interpreted to be those features of the man that were closest to the shroud and the lighter areas of the image those features that were farthest. The researchers could not replicate the effect when they attempted to transfer similar images using techniques of block print, engravings, a hot statue, and bas-relief.


Care to cite your source where those NASA scientists actually said that?  What was the title of their report?  When did they release it?  On what page did they say that?  Go on, cite your sources.
 
2013-03-31 12:50:23 PM  

Gunther:

Your pair of unsourced gif images have totally convinced now that NOAA and NASA are faking their data as part of some worldwide conspiracy theory. Oh wait; that's stupid and you're still crazy.

You're just too stupid to spend much time on.  The NOAA data comes from NOAA, and says so.   The NASA data comes from NASA, and says so.  And you're too stupid to know what it means, and *I* said so before.  Thanks for backing me up.  Just a quick touch on some of your other stupid mistakes, and I've GOT to go to bed...

It's not "literally" that's the problem -- the problem is that you are suggesting that most posts ("literally every post," even if you are nearly illiterate in your word usage, that should mean "the vast majority" at least) claim I'm crazy.  In this thread, that's pretty much only you, and perhaps a couple of other atheist faithful.  Besides which, nothing I've said is outrageous -- only the straw men you have set up have been retarded.

Note how, in the Wikipedia entry, the "other" hypotheses have been eliminated -- they're giving the HISTORY of the ideas, not just the current thoughts.  Try not to be so proud of being ignorant.  The ones left are radiant energy of high frequency.  That is NOT something that medieval forgers could do.

Nowhere in this thread have I said that it is divine intervention which made that image.  I have said, repeatedly and correctly, that the idea that the Shroud of Turin was made by medieval forgers has been falsified by the type of image it is.  It was not medieval forgers.  It is now time to come up with another hypothesis.  I have said no more than that.  I am certainly not responsible for your stupidity, nor for things you assume about my position through that stupidity.  If you want to converse with me, you can either deal with what I have said, and NOT what you fantasize about what I have said, or you can fark off -- I don't have the time, nor the inclination, to correct your failure to read what I said properly before even discussing the topic at hand.  You have yet to say anything from which I can learn something new, and I am not willing to bet so much of my time on what is clearly a long shot with amazingly long odds.  Wise up, or shut up.

 
2013-03-31 12:55:55 PM  

Mock26:

Care to cite your source where those NASA scientists actually said that? What was the title of their report? When did they release it? On what page did they say that? Go on, cite your sources.

Fark you.  It's cited in the Wikipedia Shroud article -- look it up yourself.  I'm tired of lazy jackasses saying "cite it, cite it" when they run out of arguments.
 
2013-03-31 01:01:59 PM  
Holy fark, the thread that never ends, let it go.....it's gone.

/er..GeneralJim, why is it your purpose to come off as an a**hole?, you cannot converse with people in real life  the way you do here, so why?   not just to pick on you you but to others who do the same thing
 
2013-03-31 01:26:36 PM  

GeneralJim: You're just too stupid to spend much time on.  The NOAA data comes from NOAA, and says so.   The NASA data comes from NASA, and says so


If it comes from NASA and NOAA and isn't just a bunch of BS you made up, then you'll be able to link to the raw data on their website. Give us a goddamn source or admit you're lying.

GeneralJim: It's not "literally" that's the problem -- the problem is that you are suggesting that most posts ("literally every post," even if you are nearly illiterate in your word usage, that should mean "the vast majority" at least) claim I'm crazy


I've just re-read this thread; most posters responding to you in this thread seem to think you're some variety of crazy/troll/asshole/liar.

GeneralJim: Note how, in the Wikipedia entry, the "other" hypotheses have been eliminated


OK, I'm just gonna repost what I wrote in my last post:

Gunther: Note that for most the argument against is something like "However, according to Fanti and Moroni, this does not reproduce many special features of the Shroud at microscopic level", or "the technique itself seems unable to produce an image having the most critical Turin Shroud image characteristics" or some other criticism that boils down to "these guys that have devoted their lives to trying to prove the shroud is real don't buy it but aren't going into specifics".

 
2013-03-31 01:53:48 PM  

GeneralJim: But, since you bring it up, it's not the "one side," it's the "just a few molecules thick" that's tough to do.


Not really, heat transfer works in a linear fashion, it's maybe precision work, sure, but certainly not impossible.
 
2013-03-31 01:57:15 PM  

GeneralJim: Mock26: Care to cite your source where those NASA scientists actually said that? What was the title of their report? When did they release it? On what page did they say that? Go on, cite your sources.
Fark you.  It's cited in the Wikipedia Shroud article -- look it up yourself.  I'm tired of lazy jackasses saying "cite it, cite it" when they run out of arguments.


Ah yes, the classic "go look it up yourself" defense, the sure sign that you are blowing hot air and are unable to back up your claims.  Toss in the indignant insult and your response is pure gold!

Well played, Jimmy Boy, well played.  My 5-year old nephew would be impressed with your childish response.
 
2013-03-31 02:21:05 PM  

GeneralJim: Surool: GeneralJim: Those hundreds or thousands of people were impressed enough to start a church essentially worshiping him.

There is no evidence that there were instantly hundreds of thousands of christians immediately following the alleged crucifixion... not even in the bible.

Who said they would have to be "instant" converts?  Nice goalpost move.  People who traveled with Jesus, and other witnesses, made it grow over time.


I have to give you credit for you goalpost move, but you're the one who set the initial time at the start of the church. They would have been lucky enough to have a couple dozen who were impressed enough to start a church worshipping him. Even then, it's only based on an assumption, not evidence.

Or are you saying the hundreds of thousands didn't convert until after they'd started the church?

So go ahead... move those goal posts to the first couple hundred years of the religion and say that by "start" you meant "established"... after the various groups of living men (not 'god') voted on what can and can't be part of the religion.
 
2013-03-31 03:38:46 PM  

GeneralJim: frepnog: bullshiat. 100 percent unequivocal bullshiat. Paul (arguably but most likely) started Christianity, and by his own admission he never met or even laid eyes on "Jesus".So, you're a bit logic challenged, eh?  Okay, a step at a time.  Saul of Tarsus had his conversion on the road to Damascus.  The conversion?  He went from a persecutor of the new Church, to probably its most devoted fan.  If he was persecuting the Church, he was NOT the one to form it, now, was he?


i said "arguably" because while he may not have invented the religion, without question without him it would have died.
 
2013-03-31 08:42:58 PM  

GeneralJim: Those hundreds or thousands of people were impressed enough to start a church essentially worshiping him.


Can we stop talking about Scientology and get back to talking about the shroud?
 
2013-03-31 09:51:30 PM  

GeneralJim: No, that's not true. It matters not if there is iron oxide, or a bit of pigment, or Rustoleum on the cloth -- the image is composed of threads which are charred on the OUTSIDE ONLY, not of pigment.


How do you know which side of the shroud is the outside? I'm assuming you mean the "outside" to be the side not in contact with the body? You haven't demonstrated anywhere that the shroud can't be a forgery. You just keep asserting, incorrectly, that forgery has been ruled out. Sorry, but that's not evidence.

Also, that the image on the shroud produces a 3D image when processed in a certain way doesn't mean anything at all in terms of establishing an inexplicable origin. My Boobies in this thread describes a method by which the coloration of the cloth correlates to the "elevation" of the facial features. This isn't evidence of magic or an unknown process. It's an entirely prosaic side effect of the way the image appears.
 
2013-03-31 10:29:56 PM  

wiredroach: How do you know which side of the shroud is the outside? I'm assuming you mean the "outside" to be the side not in contact with the body?


He's talking about the exposed side of the threads where we see the image.  The image is not "deep" into the cloth/threads.
 
2013-04-01 02:30:59 AM  

weirdneighbour:

/er..GeneralJim, why is it your purpose to come off as an a**hole?
Oh, boy, how exciting!   Another goddam mind-reader.
 
2013-04-01 02:36:16 AM  

Gunther:

If it comes from NASA and NOAA and isn't just a bunch of BS you made up, then you'll be able to link to the raw data on their website. Give us a goddamn source or admit you're lying.
Bugger off.  Liar?  I didn't make the charts.  They stand, unless you can find the data showing that they do not represent real data.  Of course, you'd have to say WHICH data, since both NASA and NOAA have been changing data like crazy.

At least you're consistent -- the Shroud of Turin, to you, HAS to be a fake, because you don't believe in God. Data showing NASA and NOAA cheating on the data HAVE to be fake, because you DO believe in Global Warming. VERY scientific.
 
2013-04-01 02:40:03 AM  

omeganuepsilon:

GeneralJim: But, since you bring it up, it's not the "one side," it's the "just a few molecules thick" that's tough to do.

Not really, heat transfer works in a linear fashion, it's maybe precision work, sure, but certainly not impossible.
Try it some time...  Hint:  You need large amounts of energy, over a very short period of time. This was, IIRC, 2011 -- at least the publishing of the report. At the time the scientists were the first to re-create the image process. It can't be THAT easy...
 
2013-04-01 02:42:53 AM  

Mock26:

Ah yes, the classic "go look it up yourself" defense, the sure sign that you are blowing hot air and are unable to back up your claims. Toss in the indignant insult and your response is pure gold!
Ah yes, the "you won't do whatever I say, so I win" defense.  The links aren't hidden or secret; the Wikipedia article on the "Shroud of Turin" has the links.
 
2013-04-01 02:47:13 AM  

wiredroach:

How do you know which side of the shroud is the outside? I'm assuming you mean the "outside" to be the side not in contact with the body? You haven't demonstrated anywhere that the shroud can't be a forgery. You just keep asserting, incorrectly, that forgery has been ruled out. Sorry, but that's not evidence.
No, look at what I have said.  I have ruled out it being a MEDIEVAL forgery, as long as you'll grant the lack of UV or higher frequency lasers and 3-D imaging computers in medieval times.
 
2013-04-01 03:00:17 AM  

wiredroach:

Also, that the image on the shroud produces a 3D image when processed in a certain way doesn't mean anything at all in terms of establishing an inexplicable origin. My Boobies in this thread describes a method by which the coloration of the cloth correlates to the "elevation" of the facial features. This isn't evidence of magic or an unknown process. It's an entirely prosaic side effect of the way the image appears.

Ha!  Love the filter-pwns.  Okay, if you skip the facts about the nature of the image made, it is theoretically possible to create an image related to the closeness of the cloth to skin when draped over it.  Two questions come to mind:  First, why in the HELL would that be the objective of someone making a fraudulent religious relic?  Second, this was thought of by the scientists in the 1970s -- they tried having artists aim for the "correct" result, and they tried using a computer to generate the image, and nothing worked.  While it is possible that medieval relic forgers were more talented than modern artists, they would not have any way to check their work.  And, again, one has to ask why they would be aiming for something they could not see.   If you found a CD alleged to be of Jesus' voice, and claimed that it was not from the time of Jesus, but a medieval forgery, it would be a very similar situation.  How would medieval forgers make a playable CD in the first place?
 
2013-04-01 03:06:37 AM  
GeneralJim: Ididn't make the charts.  They stand, unless you can find the data showing that they do not represent real data.  Of course, you'd have to say WHICH data, since both NASA and NOAA have been changing data like crazy.

I'm actually gonna bookmark this thread so I can link to this post in the future for proof of the futility of arguing with you, GeneralJim
 
If you were just refusing to back up your argument despite the burden of proof being squarely on you for making such a strong claim (that NASA and NOAA are faking their data), that would be enough for me to laugh at you and call you crazy. But you aren't just saying that -  you follow up "I don't need evidence! If you can't prove me wrong, I'm right!" with "Also, my standards for what I'll accept as proof are literally impossible to reach, as I'll disregard any data you link to from NASA or NOAA as having been changed!".
 
It's amazing. Utterly amazing.   You're essentially admitting it is impossible for anyone to convince you that you're wrong, no matter what. Evidence to the contrary will be dismissed as having been doctored by those evil conspirators.
 
2013-04-01 03:13:25 AM  

GeneralJim: omeganuepsilon: GeneralJim: But, since you bring it up, it's not the "one side," it's the "just a few molecules thick" that's tough to do.

Not really, heat transfer works in a linear fashion, it's maybe precision work, sure, but certainly not impossible.Try it some time...  Hint:  You need large amounts of energy, over a very short period of time. This was, IIRC, 2011 -- at least the publishing of the report. At the time the scientists were the first to re-create the image process. It can't be THAT easy...


Artists and craftsmen often excel where scientists' creative skills fall short.
 
And no, you don't need large amounts of energy to ever so lightly char cloth.  
 
Your argument is the mental equivalent of looking at a paintbrush and say, oh, the Mona Lisa and saying, "It's impossible for that brush to create something like that."
 
Want a thorough explanation of scortching, read here:
 
http://shroudstory.com/2012/02/20/image-by-scorching-heat-or-science -b y-hot-air/
 
An even simpler way:
 
http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-to-make-your-very -o wn-turin-shroud.html
 
: )
 
2013-04-01 03:14:50 AM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
/oops
 
2013-04-01 03:26:46 AM  

GeneralJim: wiredroach: How do you know which side of the shroud is the outside? I'm assuming you mean the "outside" to be the side not in contact with the body? You haven't demonstrated anywhere that the shroud can't be a forgery. You just keep asserting, incorrectly, that forgery has been ruled out. Sorry, but that's not evidence.No, look at what I have said.  I have ruled out it being a MEDIEVAL forgery, as long as you'll grant the lack of UV or higher frequency lasers and 3-D imaging computers in medieval times.


Just to re-iterate, for those thinking a bit more rationally than GeneralJim here:
 
people.virginia.edu
 
Because something similar  can be created using a particular mechanism does not mean that it was created using something analogous. One can create, say, a plastic whistle using a 3D printer, but finding a plastic whistle does not mean it was created with a 3D printer.
 
2013-04-01 08:12:28 AM  

Gunther: I'm actually gonna bookmark this thread so I can link to this post in the future for proof of the futility of arguing with you, GeneralJim.




Since you're going to bookmark it, here's another one for you to reference, Time-Traveling Exploding-Photon Jesus.

Also doubles as the thread where he breaks out the Urantia Book.
 
2013-04-01 08:26:18 AM  

Gunther: GeneralJim: Ididn't make the charts.  They stand, unless you can find the data showing that they do not represent real data.  Of course, you'd have to say WHICH data, since both NASA and NOAA have been changing data like crazy.

I'm actually gonna bookmark this thread so I can link to this post in the future for proof of the futility of arguing with you, GeneralJim. 
 
If you were just refusing to back up your argument despite the burden of proof being squarely on you for making such a strong claim (that NASA and NOAA are faking their data), that would be enough for me to laugh at you and call you crazy. But you aren't just saying that -  you follow up "I don't need evidence! If you can't prove me wrong, I'm right!" with "Also, my standards for what I'll accept as proof are literally impossible to reach, as I'll disregard any data you link to from NASA or NOAA as having been changed!".
 
It's amazing. Utterly amazing.   You're essentially admitting it is impossible for anyone to convince you that you're wrong, no matter what. Evidence to the contrary will be dismissed as having been doctored by those evil conspirators.


That's pretty much all I got from his long winded, annoying, smug-ass posts. Can't believe you stuck it out that long.
 
2013-04-01 08:43:00 AM  

Gunther:

If you were just refusing to back up your argument despite the burden of proof being squarely on you for making such a strong claim (that NASA and NOAA are faking their data), that would be enough for me to laugh at you and call you crazy. But you aren't just saying that - you follow up "I don't need evidence! If you can't prove me wrong, I'm right!" with "Also, my standards for what I'll accept as proof are literally impossible to reach, as I'll disregard any data you link to from NASA or NOAA as having been changed!".

What is it with the entire warmer alarmist crowd?  You spend so much effort writing what you wish people opposing you would say...  and that accomplishes nothing.

You set up near impossibilities.  Take NASA -- they don't keep their replaced data on-line.  I mean, they're NOT retarded, unlike some of their sycophants.  Yeah, right, there's the "current_data" file and the "data_before_we_fraudulently_altered_it" file.  Next best thing, however, is the following....  a guy notices that the NASA GISS data set has changed, with a list of the changes, the only big one to correct a Y2K mistake by James Hansen.  He has a copy of the old file, and downloads the new data from NASA, to play with off-line.   Months later, he goes back and the data is different.  There are no notices about the new changes, or lists of changes made, which is against ALL government data regulations.  The data that was there is scrubbed.  So, he downloads a copy of the "new" data, making three different copies that he has.  He writes about it to the author of an auditing blog, who goes to the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, and gets a copy of the file which has been deleted / replaced for himself -- and the file matches the first guy's file that he got from the NASA site.  This story is published, and shortly thereafter, the record from the Wayback is scrubbed.

So, the audit blog guy, with three data sets, plots the changes to the original one that NASA acknowledges in red, and the changes they DON'T mention in black.  This is what he gets:


climateaudit.files.wordpress.com

The whole thing has been bipped around, with others confirming it -- except the media isn't interested.

This incident mentioned in Climate Audit

A description of the GISS data wipe on Real Science

The issue discussed by Jennifer Marohasy


And, there are various links in the above articles.  I eagerly await your next round of whiny biatching...

 
2013-04-01 08:46:06 AM  

mooseyfate:

That's pretty much all I got from his long winded, annoying, smug-ass posts.

So, you're cognitively impaired.  Nothing to be ashamed of.
 
2013-04-01 08:59:26 AM  

omeganuepsilon:

Want a thorough explanation of scortching, read here:

http://shroudstory.com/2012/02/20/image-by-scorching-heat-or-science -b y-hot-air/

An even simpler way:

http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-to-make-your-very -o wn-turin-shroud.html

: )

Sorry, that's not going to make a tint like the ones on the shroud.  It's like taking a golf cart, and saying it's the same thing as a Tesla Roadster: "See?  Just the same -- four wheels, they're both red, both powered by batteries and electric motors, steering wheel, brake."

Scraping cloth with charcoal and putting it in the heat of a spotlight is going to char the fibers right through, and it doesn't even look like Colin (who is the subject of both your links) is aware that each fiber is charred just a micron or so deep, otherwise he'd devise something other than an Easy-Bake Oven setup.

 
2013-04-01 09:08:33 AM  
It's funny. I don't know how many times it has been covered in religion threads that making absolute claims of something being "impossible" is not a logical or reasonable position. Such as the absolute claim that "god does not exist".
 
And here we have the green thread-shiatter making the absolute claim that "medieval forgers could not have made the shroud".
 
That about says it all.
 
2013-04-01 09:27:20 AM  
Wow, GeneralJim is a farking nutjob.
 
2013-04-01 09:58:20 AM  

Farking Canuck:

It's funny. I don't know how many times it has been covered in religion threads that making absolute claims of something being "impossible" is not a logical or reasonable position. Such as the absolute claim that "god does not exist".
 
And here we have the green thread-shiatter making the absolute claim that "medieval forgers could not have made the shroud".
 
That about says it all.

Again, you demonstrate your inability to use logic properly.  If I claim John the Baptist was in Jerusalem, and one day later was in Rome, and the day after that, in San Francisco, taken by an Arab camel train, that's impossible.  In addition to the not-possible-for-camels speed necessary to make the trip, San Fransisco wasn't founded until almost two thousand years after John the Baptist's death.  Besides, I said medieval forgers could not have made the shroud without a UV laser and a 3-D rendering computer.  So, in addition to the idiocy, we have the dishonesty.

If you are stupid enough to think that medieval relic forgers had UV lasers and 3-D rendering computers, you need to do the honorable thing, and go drown yourself.  If you think that medieval forgers found out some other way to "print" those precise images, image printing that Western science was unable to reproduce until 2011, images which could not be viewed without a computer and reasonable software, and which the computer technology of the mid-1970s was unable to generate, the cure is the same.

And you equate the inability to perform this specific, highly technological achievement to the blanket statement "there is no God?"


writersessaysph.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-04-01 10:09:47 AM  

GeneralJim: This incident mentioned in Climate Audit

A description of the GISS data wipe on Real Science

The issue discussed by Jennifer Marohasy


Well, at least after a shiat-ton of badgering we finally got you to link sources to back up your conspiracy theory. Sure, they're random anti-science blogs run by nutjobs like yourself with no actual evidence of anything, but hey: progress!
 
2013-04-01 10:17:01 AM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet:

Wow, GeneralJim is a farking nutjob.

So, you believe that medieval forgers, who were often slovenly enough to just put a pig bone in a bottle, and call it the bone of a saint, had UV lasers and graphics computers, and took the time to generate a 3-D image that nobody would have the technology to view for nearly 2,000 years -- and I'm a nutjob because I say they COULDN'T do that?

1.bp.blogspot.com

Even this guy thinks you're whack

 
2013-04-01 10:19:15 AM  

Gunther:

Well, at least after a shiat-ton of badgering we finally got you to link sources to back up your conspiracy theory. Sure, they're random anti-science blogs run by nutjobs like yourself with no actual evidence of anything, but hey: progress!

If I could buy your opinion for what it's worth, and sell it for what you think it's worth, I could retire in luxury.
 
2013-04-01 10:26:37 AM  

GeneralJim: Gunther: Well, at least after a shiat-ton of badgering we finally got you to link sources to back up your conspiracy theory. Sure, they're random anti-science blogs run by nutjobs like yourself with no actual evidence of anything, but hey: progress!
If I could buy your opinion for what it's worth, and sell it for what you think it's worth, I could retire in luxury.


Please never respond to one of my threads.
 
2013-04-01 10:46:52 AM  
GeneralJim: 
If you are stupid enough to think that medieval relic forgers had UV lasers and 3-D rendering computers, you need to do the honorable thing, and go drown yourself.  If you think that medieval forgers found out some other way to "print" those precise images, image printing that Western science was unable to reproduce until 2011, images which could not be viewed without a computer and reasonable software, and which the computer technology of the mid-1970s was unable to generate, the cure is the same.
 
Wow. This is some weapon's grade stupidity you got here.
 
Let's note that I never mentioned UV Lasers. You did (endlessly). This is typical of how you think science works. You found one tidbit of science you like and you are now fixated on it ... convinced that it represents fact. Reading far more into it than is justified by the results.
 
Here is the crux of the matter: Just because these scientists were able to approximate the forgery with UV lasers that this does not mean that a forgery of the Shroud of Turin must be made this way.
 
The fact that you cannot comprehend this simple fact demonstrates the depth of your stupidity. Your inability to see things objectively. Your tunnel vision created by your preconceived notions.
 
The forging of religious artifacts was a well known and profitable industry at the time and there is no way to know all the methods they may have tried.
 
You are making the absolute claim that they could not have made the forgery. You cannot know this ... it is an illogical and irrational position.
 
2013-04-01 11:16:47 AM  

weirdneighbour: Please never respond to one of my threads.


here here, please don't come into another one of my threads
 
/subby
//goddamn, you need a life
 
2013-04-01 11:45:34 AM  

GeneralJim: Sorry, that's not going to make a tint like the ones on the shroud.


Blatant delusion.
 
Precision is what's needed, not vast amounts of power.  Vast amounts of power end up doing one thing, like burning directly through the cloth.
 
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
Yeah, totally unlike the shroud.
/nimrod
 
2013-04-01 12:01:14 PM  

GeneralJim: No, look at what I have said. I have ruled out it being a MEDIEVAL forgery, as long as you'll grant the lack of UV or higher frequency lasers and 3-D imaging computers in medieval times.

 
You haven't proven that those technologies are required to create the image on the shroud. You just keep asserting that they are. Tests of the cloth have convincingly shown that there are pigment-like materials on the cloth which doesn't require lasers or computers to apply.
 

GeneralJim: Okay, if you skip the facts about the nature of the image made, it is theoretically possible to create an image related to the closeness of the cloth to skin when draped over it. Two questions come to mind: First, why in the HELL would that be the objective of someone making a fraudulent religious relic? Second, this was thought of by the scientists in the 1970s -- they tried having artists aim for the "correct" result, and they tried using a computer to generate the image, and nothing worked. While it is possible that medieval relic forgers were more talented than modern artists, they would not have any way to check their work. And, again, one has to ask why they would be aiming for something they could not see. If you found a CD alleged to be of Jesus' voice, and claimed that it was not from the time of Jesus, but a medieval forgery, it would be a very similar situation. How would medieval forgers make a playable CD in the first place?


Using a bas-relief type of sculpture to transfer the image to the shroud would actually be a fairly practical way to simulate the desired effect of Jesus' image, especially if the forger didn't possess strong drafting skills. It's an even better way to mass-produce shrouds if you're in the shroud-forging business.
 
Here's an entirely prosaic recreation based on this idea:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1218457/Shroud-Turin- re plica-proves-medieval-techniques-make-relic-say-scientists.html
 
And again, the "3D" effect isn't magical--it's just a byproduct of this type of shading when used as a bump or displacement map in 3D software. The close-up images of the faces in the article I linked show that the shroud image and the recreation both use shading based on elevation. Either will exhibit the "3D" effect if used as a bump map. I don't know why you think that the shroud image producing this effect is somehow proof that some advanced technology must have been employed to create the markings on the cloth.
 
2013-04-01 03:09:33 PM  

GeneralJim: Gunther:

If you were just refusing to back up your argument despite the burden of proof being squarely on you for making such a strong claim (that NASA and NOAA are faking their data), that would be enough for me to laugh at you and call you crazy. But you aren't just saying that - you follow up "I don't need evidence! If you can't prove me wrong, I'm right!" with "Also, my standards for what I'll accept as proof are literally impossible to reach, as I'll disregard any data you link to from NASA or NOAA as having been changed!".

What is it with the entire warmer alarmist crowd?  You spend so much effort writing what you wish people opposing you would say...  and that accomplishes nothing.
You set up near impossibilities.  Take NASA -- they don't keep their replaced data on-line.  I mean, they're NOT retarded, unlike some of their sycophants.  Yeah, right, there's the "current_data" file and the "data_before_we_fraudulently_altered_it" file.  Next best thing, however, is the following....  a guy notices that the NASA GISS data set has changed, with a list of the changes, the only big one to correct a Y2K mistake by James Hansen.  He has a copy of the old file, and downloads the new data from NASA, to play with off-line.   Months later, he goes back and the data is different.  There are no notices about the new changes, or lists of changes made, which is against ALL government data regulations.  The data that was there is scrubbed.  So, he downloads a copy of the "new" data, making three different copies that he has.  He writes about it to the author of an auditing blog, who goes to the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, and gets a copy of the file which has been deleted / replaced for himself -- and the file matches the first guy's file that he got from the NASA site.  This story is published, and shortly thereafter, the record from the Wayback is scrubbed.

So, the audit blog guy, with three data sets, plots the changes to the original one that NASA acknowledges in ...



This is why you should actually read the articles you cite. From the first link:

"It is entirely possible that the change in GISS US since August 2007 is primarily due to the replacement of USHCN v1 methodology (TOBS and that sort of thing that we discussed in the past) with Menne's changepoint methodology used in USHCN v2."

The reason why stuff like this isn't covered in "the media" is that they at least recognize (with some exceptions) that a lack of evidence or information at that time does not mean you get to make up stuff in order to fill in the gaps.
 
2013-04-01 08:11:37 PM  

GeneralJim: Mock26: Ah yes, the classic "go look it up yourself" defense, the sure sign that you are blowing hot air and are unable to back up your claims. Toss in the indignant insult and your response is pure gold!Ah yes, the "you won't do whatever I say, so I win" defense.  The links aren't hidden or secret; the Wikipedia article on the "Shroud of Turin" has the links.


Good thing you are not lawyer.

GeneralJim: "Your honor, I have evidence that proves the accused is guilty."
Judge: "What is your evidence?"
GeneralJim: "Look it up yourself, loser!"
 
2013-04-01 08:15:44 PM  
This sort of thread where people deny such simple science makes me wonder.

Is extreme stupidity(and hence a lot of religiosity) possibly some type of anosognosia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anosognosia

In a short example.  Someone who is completely blind, but denies it and makes excuses when they can't pass a simple test such as, "How many fingers am I holding up?"
 
2013-04-02 12:13:08 AM  

Farking Canuck:

Here is the crux of the matter: Just because these scientists were able to approximate the forgery with UV lasers that this does not mean that a forgery of the Shroud of Turin must be made this way.

Here's the crux of your stupidity -- until the Italian scientists used a UV laser, nobody had made marks on cloth like those on the Shroud of Turin.  But surely, scientists today could duplicate anything a medieval con artist could do...  couldn't they? So, come up with ANOTHER way to do this -- should be easy. Any illiterate medieval peasant can do it, right? So, do it.
 
2013-04-02 12:48:50 AM  

GeneralJim: Farking Canuck: Here is the crux of the matter: Just because these scientists were able to approximate the forgery with UV lasers that this does not mean that a forgery of the Shroud of Turin must be made this way.
Here's the crux of your stupidity -- until the Italian scientists used a UV laser, nobody had made marks on cloth like those on the Shroud of Turin.  But surely, scientists today could duplicate anything a medieval con artist could do...  couldn't they? So, come up with ANOTHER way to do this -- should be easy. Any illiterate medieval peasant can do it, right? So, do it.


Seriously? You claim to understand science and yet you are actually saying that there is no other way to do something because one way was found??

This thread is definitely getting bookmarked. Proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that you put faith ahead of logic and reason.

Thank you for this Easter gift. :)
 
2013-04-02 12:53:45 AM  

GeneralJim: until the Italian scientists used a UV laser, nobody had made marks on cloth like those on the Shroud of Turin


Except that isn't true -  wiredroachpointed out that scientists made a copy using medieval methods in 2009. You just keep asserting that it takes a UV laser over and over and over again without any evidence, presumably in the hopes people will give up and stop arguing with you so you can declare that you "won" the thread, just like you always do.
 
2013-04-02 12:56:41 AM  

GeneralJim: Farking Canuck: Here is the crux of the matter: Just because these scientists were able to approximate the forgery with UV lasers that this does not mean that a forgery of the Shroud of Turin must be made this way.
Here's the crux of your stupidity -- until the Italian scientists used a UV laser, nobody had made marks on cloth like those on the Shroud of Turin.  But surely, scientists today could duplicate anything a medieval con artist could do...  couldn't they? So, come up with ANOTHER way to do this -- should be easy. Any illiterate medieval peasant can do it, right? So, do it.


There's a few problems here with this reasoning. First, the reliance on a single (notably non-cited) report by unnamed Italian scientists. Second, GeneralJim seems to be conflating a lack of information on something with a kind of proof of the non-existence of something.

What he has failed to appreciate in both of these cases is the issue of the quality and quantity of information available. One should probably not take a single uncorroborated and nebulous report as being definitive, and the importance of a lack of evidence of another way to duplicate the shroud is predicated on the assumption that enough people have actually tried to make such an assessment meaningful. This argument of GeneralJim's is resting on two very shaky premises, and probably doesn't warrant the confidence he is investing in it.
 
2013-04-02 12:59:39 AM  

Gunther: GeneralJim: until the Italian scientists used a UV laser, nobody had made marks on cloth like those on the Shroud of Turin

Except that isn't true -  wiredroachpointed out that scientists made a copy using medieval methods in 2009. You just keep asserting that it takes a UV laser over and over and over again without any evidence, presumably in the hopes people will give up and stop arguing with you so you can declare that you "won" the thread, just like you always do.


Good point.

I forgot to mention in my post that any accurate assessment of the available evidence on the part of GeneralJim is complicated by his tendency to actively ignore information he doesn't like.
 
2013-04-02 01:59:23 AM  
Just in case there's any doubt about the mythical 3D properties of the Shroud, here's a quick and dirty comparison I did, using the greyscale portraits from the article detailing the Italian re-creation of the overlay transfer technique.

I did this using displacement maps in Cinema 4D to translate the greyscale into 3D geometry. I applied about 3 pixels of Gaussian blur to the images in Photoshop to smooth out some of the noise; otherwise they're untouched. Both exhibit three-dimensionality consistent with a human face, so there's nothing magical about the Shroud in this respect. The shroud's looks a bit more realistic to me, but that's probably because its image from the article is less contrasty than the re-creation's, and will therefore have more gradual transitions in elevation.

drewblood.com

The shroud has pigment on it; it doesn't need to have an exotic origin to have "3D" properties, and radiocarbon dating places it squarely in the 1200s - 1400s. It's a fake.
 
2013-04-02 03:15:27 AM  

wiredroach:

And again, the "3D" effect isn't magical--it's just a byproduct of this type of shading when used as a bump or displacement map in 3D software. The close-up images of the faces in the article I linked show that the shroud image and the recreation both use shading based on elevation. Either will exhibit the "3D" effect if used as a bump map. I don't know why you think that the shroud image producing this effect is somehow proof that some advanced technology must have been employed to create the markings on the cloth.

All right, I'll explain it one more time.  Please try to follow along.

It's not a 3-D effect.  It is a 3-D encoding.  The density, or "image flux," for want of a better term, is proportional to the distance of the cloth from the body.  The effect is exactly that as if every atom in the body gave off a set amount of "darkening" which then reacted with the cloth.  Here, maybe these will help...

Watch this video for information on the 3-D imaging

Watch this video for further information on the cloth positioning information

Watch this video for other information upon which I am not as informed, primarily medical


 
2013-04-02 04:13:10 AM  

GeneralJim: It is a 3-D encoding.


False, different values on the greyscale are arbitrarily assigned height values by the designers of the software.
I already covered that, you can take literally any image and run it through the right software and end up with 3d data as that's what the software is designed for.  The only objects that have "3d data" in their natural state are...wait for it.....NOT FLAT(ie 3d, not 2d).  These 3d(real life analog items) can be measured with instrumentation.

A real photo has no 3d data, clever programs written can, however, construct a 3d model of a picture of a 3d item, because we know how light works and how the skin difuses/reflects it and we can reverse engineer it, so to speak, to make a approximate 3d simulacra of things like human faces.

GeneralJim: The density, or "image flux," for want of a better term, is proportional to the distance of the cloth from the body.  The effect is exactly that as if every atom in the body gave off a set amount of "darkening" which then reacted with the cloth.


False, when you consider how a shroud hangs on a real body, you'd get something more akin to:
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com

Spatial relations, how do they work?

In order for a medium to attain a portrait like image with that point of view, the medium would have to be more or less flat.  A draping shroud as you described would be distorted like the above when later laid flat.

A central burst of energy would project to all areas of the hanging shroud, yielding a wrap-around view, not a slim and undistorted portrait when laid flat.

/said it all before
//not like it will help this time
///delusional buffoon
 
2013-04-02 05:48:14 AM  

Farking Canuck:

Seriously? You claim to understand science and yet you are actually saying that there is no other way to do something because one way was found??

Typically, you don't get it.  I am NOT saying there is no other way to make that image, and we can make it now.  Odds are there are other ways.  But nobody has done it yet.  And, in the 21st century, if we have only figured out one way to do it, what are the odds that some 13th or 14th century sleazeball relic forger could come up with a way that we cannot?  Additionally, why would he (or she) even try?  I mean, what would be the motivation to make an image composed of fiber char of just the surface, when rubbing in a bit of pigment would do the same?   There are other anomalies, NOT FOUND IN ANY FORGED RELIC, ANYWHERE:

- The image is a photo-negative, but the blood is photo-positive

- The blood only shows under UV, is human, type AB, and filled with billirubin, indicative that the donor was severely beaten

- The image consists of char marks on the carbohydrate layers of the fiber

- The cloth is consistent with other retrieved first century shrouds

- The cloth contains pollen from Palestine, in proportion to first century plants there

- The cloth also contains pollen from Constantinople, where the "real" shroud was housed

- The image shows very faint flowers, all species from first century Palestine

- Dirt on the footprint on the shroud has been identified as originating in Jerusalem's Damascus Gate

- The image is incredibly faint without intense enhancement, but has many bizarre details:

- The hands were penetrated at the wrist - medieval representations show the palm being pierced

- The image fuzzes out at the edges, while medieval art is almost entirely sharp-edged -- outlined

- There are coins on the eyes of the image - a 1 Lepton and a 2 Lepton coin, minted in A.D. 29-30

- One of the coins has a misspelling: a "C" rather than a "K."  Coins with that same flaw were circulated

- Front and back appear to be different heights - anatomically determined to be correct, considering positioning of the body

- Forensics have determined that the body in the image was crucified

- Although crucified, the body's legs were NOT broken, as was Roman custom in crucifixion.

- The body in the image was flailed by a Roman Flagrum, a very specific device, the exact number of times specified by Roman law


This is as weird as if Galileo had produced an accurate map of the back side of the moon. "Pfft, forgery" would not cut it. How would a forger know what was on the back side of the moon? Seriously, you can make a better case that aliens planted the Shroud just to fark with us, than that a medieval forger used unknown methods to solidify an image on cloth, an image which was both 3-D encoded and a photo-negative on a cloth which was in Palestine in the first century, and later in Turkey, using anatomical details of the Crucifixion which had been lost, only to be discovered in the twentieth century. Occam's razor says it's Jesus' shroud.


 
2013-04-02 06:05:29 AM  

wiredroach:

The shroud has pigment on it; it doesn't need to have an exotic origin to have "3D" properties, and radiocarbon dating places it squarely in the 1200s - 1400s. It's a fake.

Sorry, that's just not true, other than the carbon dating bit -- and the science on the carbon dating is very sketchy.  It matters not if there is pigment on the shroud - the image on it is not made with pigment.  And, YES, it does need exotic origins to get 3-D encoding.  Oh, FFS, just look above at the list of bizarre properties of this piece.  If it is a medeival forgery, it was done by the greatest genius the world has ever seen -- the forger anticipates UV id of blood, photography, 3-D imaging, displays PERFECT knowledge of anatomy and Roman Crucifixion, and is an expert on both the "legendary" Shroud, and plants of Palestine in the first century, and later Turkey.
 
2013-04-02 06:54:53 AM  

omeganuepsilon:

GeneralJim: It is a 3-D encoding.

False, different values on the greyscale are arbitrarily assigned height values by the designers of the software. I already covered that, you can take literally any image and run it through the right software and end up with 3d data as that's what the software is designed for.  The only objects that have "3d data" in their natural state are...wait for it.....NOT FLAT(ie 3d, not 2d).  These 3d(real life analog items) can be measured with instrumentation.

So, where did the medieval forger get this software, and how did he run it?  Also, note that neither the body in the image, nor the Shroud itself were FLAT at the time.  Watch the video at the link below.  Seriously.

A real photo has no 3d data, clever programs written can, however, construct a 3d model of a picture of a 3d item, because we know how light works and how the skin difuses/reflects it and we can reverse engineer it, so to speak, to make a approximate 3d simulacra of things like human faces.
And where would a medieval forger get these "clever programs" and how would he run them?
GeneralJim: The density, or "image flux," for want of a better term, is proportional to the distance of the cloth from the body.  The effect is exactly that as if every atom in the body gave off a set amount of "darkening" which then reacted with the cloth.

False, when you consider how a shroud hangs on a real body, you'd get something more akin to: [encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 304x166] Spatial relations, how do they work? In order for a medium to attain a portrait like image with that point of view, the medium would have to be more or less flat.  A draping shroud as you described would be distorted like the above when later laid flat. A central burst of energy would project to all areas of the hanging shroud, yielding a wrap-around view, not a slim and undistorted portrait when laid flat.

/said it all before
//not like it will help this time
///delusional buffoon

Delusional buffoon? Fark that. You come up with some computer generated slop, some crap made of red ochre, and say it's the same? Bollocks. It sounds to me like you are using the "There is no God, so the Shroud is false" logic. Your imaginary medieval forger would not have had a computer.

Blah, blah, woof, woof.  You're simply wrong about the imaging.  Watch this video to show you why.

Additionally, the "copy" you tout above ISN'T a copy -- the image is made of red ocher; looking similar to the naked eye is not the point.   The image on the Shroud of Turin is not made of red ocher.  I'd also like to see what happens to it when it is processed as in the video linked in this paragraph.  Now THIS red ocher shroud is a forgery, and would be easily identified as one.  "Ha.  The pollen is not from Palestine, the dirt from the footprint is not dirt, and not from Palestine, etc., etc."

And, what of the bazillions of other bizarre features of this cloth?  You have, so far, ignored all of them, probably because they don't fit your narrative.  A list of some of them is only a few posts up-thread.  Ask yourself, why on Earth would a forger do all of that, having to develop new human knowledge to do it, when a smear of red ocher would be sufficient for his "clientele?"

 
2013-04-02 07:35:23 AM  
I don't know about you guys but now he's started linking to crank youtube videos I'm TOTALLY convinced
 
2013-04-02 07:42:17 AM  
OK, I hate to pull a Jim and write across multiple posts, but I just had to respond to this one thing:

GeneralJim: And, what of the bazillions of other bizarre features of this cloth?  You have, so far, ignored all of them, probably because they don't fit your narrative.


Whereas you would never ignore anything inconvenient, like the fact that samples of the cloth were carbon dated in 1988 by several different independent laboratories and found to date from1260 - 1390. And before you even start in with the bullshiat about the samples being taken from a medieval repair, from that wiki page:


Leading STURP scientist Dr John Jackson further discounted the possibility that the C14 sample may have been conducted on a medieval repair fragment, on the basis that the radiographs and transmitted light images taken by STURP in 1978 clearly show that the natural colour bandings present throughout the linen of the shroud propagate in an uninterrupted fashion through the region that would later provide the sample for radiocarbon dating. This could not have been possible if the sampled area was a later addition.


Or in other words...
 
2013-04-02 08:42:10 AM  

GeneralJim: wiredroach: And again, the "3D" effect isn't magical--it's just a byproduct of this type of shading when used as a bump or displacement map in 3D software. The close-up images of the faces in the article I linked show that the shroud image and the recreation both use shading based on elevation. Either will exhibit the "3D" effect if used as a bump map. I don't know why you think that the shroud image producing this effect is somehow proof that some advanced technology must have been employed to create the markings on the cloth.
All right, I'll explain it one more time.  Please try to follow along.
It's not a 3-D effect.  It is a 3-D encoding.  The density, or "image flux," for want of a better term, is proportional to the distance of the cloth from the body.  The effect is exactly that as if every atom in the body gave off a set amount of "darkening" which then reacted with the cloth.  Here, maybe these will help...Watch this video for information on the 3-D imagingWatch this video for further information on the cloth positioning informationWatch this video for other information upon which I am not as informed, primarily medical


There is no such thing as 3D encoding on a 2D image!!!!
 
2013-04-02 08:49:45 AM  
So...the shroud is fake, yes? Cool. Lights out on this thread, good work, guys!
 
2013-04-02 08:56:58 AM  

GeneralJim: All right, I'll explain it one more time.  Please try to follow along.


cdn0.hark.com
YOU SMUG F*CK!!!
 
2013-04-02 08:59:41 AM  

GeneralJim: the science on the carbon dating is very sketchy


Is there a worldwide conspiracy of scientists in this field as well? Damn those evil bastards! We can't trust any of them! Hang them all!!

/sorry ... it is probably just a few scientists in on the conspiracy who have somehow tricked all the rest because they are idiots
//right?
 
2013-04-02 10:25:35 AM  
I said it before.  I say it again.  The shroud is a medieval fake.  Anyone that thinks otherwise is either a liar or a fool.

There is no middle ground.  There is no "oh but it MIGHT be".  It is FAKE.  period.  Aside from the FACT that magic does not exist, the shroud is so fake it is not even worth mentioning any longer.  We KNOW it is fake.  We pretty much know how they did it and can reproduce it closely using methods available in medieval times.  It is sad to those that WANT it to be real that science progresses and that fakes can be spotted in these times that could not have been in the year 1400 but COME ON.

It's fake so....  liar or fool if you claim it is real.
 
2013-04-02 11:06:05 AM  

GeneralJim: omeganuepsilon:

GeneralJim: It is a 3-D encoding.

False, different values on the greyscale are arbitrarily assigned height values by the designers of the software. I already covered that, you can take literally any image and run it through the right software and end up with 3d data as that's what the software is designed for.  The only objects that have "3d data" in their natural state are...wait for it.....NOT FLAT(ie 3d, not 2d).  These 3d(real life analog items) can be measured with instrumentation.


So, where did the medieval forger get this software, and how did he run it?

You must be on serious drugs.

The artists who created the thing, like any other work of art ever, just created the art.
THERE IS NO 3D INFORMATION IN IT.

It's no different from any work of art ever, it can be fed into a modern machine as a 2d program and a bump/displacement map can be made from it. You can do this with, quite literally, any 2d image that is not a uniform picture.(that will still yield a uniform deformation.)

You can do this with the Mona Lisa, or a poloroid of your crap in a toilet, or a screen-cap of a fark thread.  It's not magic, you don't just make up the rules as you go.  Well....you do.
 
2013-04-02 11:08:28 AM  
Ready for round two?....It's real dammit. and you're a fool to think otherwise. dickheads
/praise Jebus
 
2013-04-02 11:31:09 AM  

GeneralJim: Watch this video for information on the 3-D imaging



Quote from this page: "The Shroud image however, varies in intensity in direct correlation with the apparent distance it was from the cloth at the moment the image was formed." This is exactly the effect I described in my post and rendering above. You don't know what you're talking about.

You state: It is a 3-D encoding.  The density, or "image flux," for want of a better term, is proportional to the distance of the cloth from the body.  The effect is exactly that as if every atom in the body gave off a set amount of "darkening" which then reacted with the cloth.

That's gibberish. The shroud in no way exhibits anything of the kind. You're misinterpreting the above quote from your page.

Watch this video for further information on the cloth positioning information

Ray Downing, the video's "expert," is described as a graphic artist. I'm a graphic artist. So my credentials are as good as his. His website includes renderings of horses with wings, so they must be real, too. And his method is essentially the same as mine, with a better source scan and adding the three-dimensional shape of a human face as he assumes it would be lying under the cloth. His photo-realistic rendering in no way is a direct, unambiguous translation of the Shroud image. He's adding his own interpretation into the process.

His proof that the carbon dating is wrong? "We have a painting of the shroud of Turin from 68 years before the outermost date..." Never mind that we also have historical paintings of mermaids, UFOs, Athena, etc. Neither does the painting show how the shroud was wrapped around the body. And the painting doesn't look like the Shroud image or his own rendering (the painting's hair parted strongly on the left, the longer, straighter nose), so it's clearly a different depiction that makes its use as a precedent irrelevant. Even if it were a similar image, it's only 68 years older than the fake shroud and as such would be a 12th-13th depiction, which would hardly a journalistic record of Christ's burial.

drewblood.com drewblood.com


"Does the Shroud of Turin and my depiction of Jesus look the same? Yeah." Yeah, because he based one on the other, not because either is any proof of what Jesus actually looked like. Even one of the schmoes they interviewed on the street in your link was able to point that out. Just because you can make something with a computer using some kind of source data doesn't mean you can extrapolate a photorealistic result.

You just don't understand what you're talking about with regard to the 3D effect.
 
2013-04-02 12:17:26 PM  
I must be like Jesus....
/poser and photoshop
//very exotic
///rushed, know the thread has got to be about done


img198.imageshack.us
 
Displayed 433 of 433 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report