- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 12/20/15 at 10:39 pm to ChineseBandit58
LINK
Some scientists think it was created by a combination of light and radiation, not one, but both.
The blood occurred on the shroud first, then a burst of radiation combined with light created the image that is best seen with a negative.
This image is only contained in the first 1% of the piece of thread that was closest to the body.
Imagine that a person was crucified and a shroud was placed over their body. After the blood dried an event occurred that causes a sudden blast of radiation and light at the same time which lasted a few nano-seconds. POOF! The creation of this image on this shroud.
There was a historical event that occurred about 2000 years ago that follows these steps. Was that what caused this image? One could accept this historical event as being the way this image was created until a more plausible scientific method is discovered.
Paint theory:
It was not created by paint. Why would a painter paint an image so lightly that know one could see it? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of painting something? What artist would paint an image on a 14 foot cloth that no one can see until a camera is invented years into the future? How many artists can paint on a cloth so that the paint does not penetrate beyond the first 1% of the first strand of thread on the cloth?
Some scientists think it was created by a combination of light and radiation, not one, but both.
The blood occurred on the shroud first, then a burst of radiation combined with light created the image that is best seen with a negative.
This image is only contained in the first 1% of the piece of thread that was closest to the body.
Imagine that a person was crucified and a shroud was placed over their body. After the blood dried an event occurred that causes a sudden blast of radiation and light at the same time which lasted a few nano-seconds. POOF! The creation of this image on this shroud.
There was a historical event that occurred about 2000 years ago that follows these steps. Was that what caused this image? One could accept this historical event as being the way this image was created until a more plausible scientific method is discovered.
Paint theory:
It was not created by paint. Why would a painter paint an image so lightly that know one could see it? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of painting something? What artist would paint an image on a 14 foot cloth that no one can see until a camera is invented years into the future? How many artists can paint on a cloth so that the paint does not penetrate beyond the first 1% of the first strand of thread on the cloth?
Posted on 12/20/15 at 10:42 pm to mpar98
It has been proven authentic to all the religious nutjobs out there. Confirmation bias and Cognitive Dissonance. It's what's for dinner. 
Posted on 12/21/15 at 12:30 am to genuineLSUtiger
quote:
It has been proven authentic to all the religious nutjobs out there. Confirmation bias and Cognitive Dissonance.
The only thing the Shroud has going against it is the Carbon-14 dating. And it has already been established that the fragments tested were more than likely younger bits of cloth sewn on ad-hoc after being damaged by fire.
Everything else points to it being authentic. There is no scientific explanation as to how the image formed on the shroud and there has never been a successful attempt at reproducing the exact image that shows up on the shroud.
Posted on 12/21/15 at 6:48 pm to RollTide1987
If it was forged why and how was it done in the negative? That in itself is next to impossible to do. Some will not believe period.
Posted on 12/21/15 at 7:01 pm to bountyhunter
quote:
The biggest area of debate is the variance in date range from the actual date
Kind of a big deal
Posted on 12/21/15 at 7:38 pm to mpar98
Even if it is proven to be an authentic cloth that they used to wrap a man after crucifixion and was around the time of Christ, I don't know how you can prove it wrapped Jesus himself. And particularly from a church that went around selling bullshite pieces of the original cross, let's just say I take that with a grain of salt.
Posted on 12/22/15 at 8:45 am to genuineLSUtiger
quote:
Confirmation bias and Cognitive Dissonance. It's what's for dinner.
By their nature, Confirmation bias and Cognitive Dissonance cut both ways. The accusation of such neither proves nor disproves yourself as the reasonable and correct party in any discussion.
Peace.
Posted on 12/22/15 at 8:59 am to OMLandshark
quote:
Even if it is proven to be an authentic cloth that they used to wrap a man after crucifixion and was around the time of Christ, I don't know how you can prove it wrapped Jesus himself. And particularly from a church that went around selling bullshite pieces of the original cross, let's just say I take that with a grain of salt.
This.
They will rebuttal with the "crown of thorns was only on Jesus!" though.
Posted on 12/22/15 at 9:12 am to TheCaterpillar
- No wraparound distortion as would be expected by an authentic burial shroud
- Anatomically incorrect head, arms, legs, torso to the point that a man of those proportions would be considered freakish if he actually existed.
Those two alone prove the Shroud is a fake.
Then:
- The Shroud violates Jewish burial tradition of the time.
- The weave of the cloth probably didn't exist during Jesus's alleged historical period.
Those two alone would eliminate the Shroud from serious consideration.
Then:
- The carbon dating scientifically proves it's a 1260-1390 AD garment. The attempts to discredit the carbon dating have proven to be biased and flawed.
We're back to proof again.
- Anatomically incorrect head, arms, legs, torso to the point that a man of those proportions would be considered freakish if he actually existed.
Those two alone prove the Shroud is a fake.
Then:
- The Shroud violates Jewish burial tradition of the time.
- The weave of the cloth probably didn't exist during Jesus's alleged historical period.
Those two alone would eliminate the Shroud from serious consideration.
Then:
- The carbon dating scientifically proves it's a 1260-1390 AD garment. The attempts to discredit the carbon dating have proven to be biased and flawed.
We're back to proof again.
This post was edited on 12/22/15 at 9:13 am
Posted on 12/22/15 at 9:20 am to Rex
This is the type of head image PHYSICS and BIOLOGY dictate would be formed if the cloth were truly a shroud:
Posted on 12/22/15 at 9:47 am to RollTide1987
quote:
The shroud was supposedly forged in France in the 14th century. And yet pollen samples from Israel, specifically from the area around Jerusalem, show up on the shroud. Some of the pollen that shows up on the shroud only blooms during the spring - the season in which Christ was crucified. Interesting enough, one of those types of pollen found on the shroud originate from a thorn plant found ONLY in the fields around Jerusalem.
If this was a 14th century forgery, why would the forger use flowers from Israel? There was no need to get that elaborate because no one had the first clue about the different types of pollen found in plants back in those days.
Go ahead and try to explain all that, Rex.
You poor, stupid fool. You're so stupid you've fooled yourself into thinking you're smart.
Posted on 12/22/15 at 9:49 am to RollTide1987
quote:
There is no scientific explanation
Posted on 12/22/15 at 9:50 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Go ahead and try to explain all that, Rex.
There are pollen, DNA, and fiber traces from all over the world on the Turin shroud. It's been handled by many people from all over... including from the United States.
eta: Now YOU explain why there's no wraparound distortion, why the head on the image is too large, why the torso on the image is too short, and why if YOU lay on your back and tried to cover your privates as the image does you couldn't do it.
This post was edited on 12/22/15 at 9:52 am
Posted on 12/22/15 at 9:54 am to monsterballads
I would say 95% of Shroud defenders are Trump voters. Soundbites that confirm existing prejudices without proper investigation into the veracity of the claims is what drives such people.
Posted on 12/22/15 at 9:54 am to Rex
Why do you hate science, Rex?
Posted on 12/22/15 at 9:55 am to Thorny
quote:
By their nature, Confirmation bias and Cognitive Dissonance cut both ways. The accusation of such neither proves nor disproves yourself as the reasonable and correct party in any discussion.
Posted on 12/22/15 at 9:56 am to mpar98
Woohoo another backhanded religion bashing thread.
Posted on 12/22/15 at 9:57 am to Darth_Vader
Why didn't you answer my questions?
The SCIENCE dates the relic from 1260-1390 AD, proves the image is anatomically incorrect, proves the image is incorrectly undistorted, and detects ochre and tempera paint residue on the cloth.
The SCIENCE dates the relic from 1260-1390 AD, proves the image is anatomically incorrect, proves the image is incorrectly undistorted, and detects ochre and tempera paint residue on the cloth.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News