Lets Talk About Things Science Cannot Explain

[Justin Swanton]

Which makes it 13th /14th century. Wikipedia also points out that the first time it appeared in the records (in 1390) it was denounced by the local bishop as a forgery with the forger having confessed to making it.

There were plenty of fake relics at that time, and the appearance of the shroud in an obscure town in France without a documented past would have got the local bishop's back up immediately. The forger who confessed - well, one thing that has been established is that the shroud could not have been produced by any known human means, or even any conceivable human means (barring a 5 GW laser), certainly not by the technology or skills of the Middle Ages.

Hogwash! How many thousands of times has that scene been represented in art over the centuries and there is only ONE picture that looks a bit like a much later picture? Monkeys. Typewriters. Cherry picked evidence

There's a whole study on resemblances in detail between different religious depictions of Christ from early Byzantine times onwards. But the point of the Pray manuscript is that the artist - unlike others - clearly saw the shroud himself (probably in Constantinople until 1204) as evidenced by the herringbone weave and the four burn holes from an earlier fire he depicts in his image. Otherwise why put them there?

Even more inexplicable is that the 'Hungarian Pray Manuscript' shows Jesus didn't have any thumbs, only fingers. Everyone else in the picture has four fingers and a thumb, even the angel, but not poor old Jesus.

There are no thumbs in the shroud image either. The reason for this is the location of the nail wounds. They don't go through the palms as traditionally depicted in paintings, but through the wrists. It has been demonstrated that only the wrist bones, not the palm tissue, have enough strength to support a body. But when hammering a nail through the wrist, the median nerve is damaged. This causes the thumb to flex inwards, hiding it from view.

 

[JunkMonkey]

There's a whole study on resemblances in detail between different religious depictions of Christ from early Byzantine times onwards. But the point of the Pray manuscript is that the artist - unlike others - clearly saw the shroud himself (probably in Constantinople until 1204) as evidenced by the herringbone weave and the four burn holes from an earlier fire he depicts in his image. Otherwise why put them there?

This is called 'Cherry Picking'. Stumbling across ONE piece of evince out of thousands that confirms your hypothesis and holding up as clear undeniable incontrovertible proof (usually accompanied by Dänikenesque stating of 'obvious facts' which are no more than feedback. "The artist - unlike others - clearly saw the shroud himself" is based on nothing more than the fact that the thing in the drawing looks, to some people, like the thing they want it to look like.)

There is no evidence that the Clay artist who "unlike others - clearly saw the shroud himself" saw anything that could have been the shroud. There is no evidence that he actually drew a shroud. Lots of people seem to think its a drawing of a tomb cover. It could be a coffee table, I don't know. I do know that searching through historical records finding Rorschach blotches that resemble things you want them to look like is not 'evidence'.

 

[JunkMonkey]

Where did we lose all these secrets? The shroud... the pyramids... dang it if we haven't lost a lot of knowledge!

I know and all those lost civilisations that took their secrets with them: Lemuria, Mu, Atlantis all that lot.

 

[Venusian Broon]

The shroud, though certainly not Jesus' image, is still an extremely interesting piece of work! I'd love to know how it was made!

I love the theory that the shroud was created by Leonardo da Vinci in a very early experiment in photography (by some means not known). A lot of this theory goes into positing that the figure on the shroud shares a great deal of similarities with what is known about da Vinci - i.e. he used himself as the model/experiment and also how he (and whatever organisation he was heading at the time - see below) might revel in blaspheming, by making himself Jesus!

It unfortunately still can't explain how he did it, but hey, as he was maybe a member of the Priory of Sion/Templar/Mason/Rosycrucian/Illuminati all of his major secrets were hushed up or never published...

...Okay, probably not true at all, but as theories go, it's a great ride to go along

 

[Cathbad]

~reports @Venusian Broon to the Priory~

 

[Venusian Broon]

~reports @Venusian Broon to the Priory~

That's okay, I do part-time work in the cafeteria there on Sundays...

 

[Vertigo]

One of the things that appeals about the Da Vinci theory is it may have involved chemicals of which, after so long, there are no remaining traces.

 

[Dennis E. Taylor]

The real problem with the shroud issue is this: claiming that science can't explain it proves nothing except that science can't explain it. Yet. If you want us to believe that it is of supernatural origin, you have to provide positive proof of that. After all, science can't explain ball lightning yet; we haven't come up with an integrated TOE; science can't explain Trump's hair; we don't know what dark matter is. None of this means that it's pixies.
This is what creates the "God of the Gaps" process. Believers proclaim, "You can't explain it, therefore God!". Science, sooner or later, explains it. Believers chant, "Okay, but you can't explain this!" Science eventually explains it. Rinse, repeat. With each iteration, the realm that can be explained by God, the gaps in knowledge, shrinks.
To paraphrase a probably apocryphal conversation, "We have no need of that hypothesis."

 

[Justin Swanton]

One of the things that appeals about the Da Vinci theory is it may have involved chemicals of which, after so long, there are no remaining traces.

One thing which scientific investigation has precisely ruled out is any use of chemicals in the creation of the image. The image is incredibly superficial, a discolouration - more precisely a degradation of the cellulose - of the top few nanometres of the upper fibrils. Any use of chemicals would have meant the discolouration penetrating much deeper into the cloth, and if the discolouration is caused by a chemical, then by definition the chemical must still be there.

 

[Justin Swanton]

This is called 'Cherry Picking'. Stumbling across ONE piece of evince out of thousands that confirms your hypothesis and holding up as clear undeniable incontrovertible proof (usually accompanied by Dänikenesque stating of 'obvious facts' which are no more than feedback. "The artist - unlike others - clearly saw the shroud himself" is based on nothing more than the fact that the thing in the drawing looks, to some people, like the thing they want it to look like.)

Not quite. I singled out the Pray manuscript because it reproduces three peculiar details that only an eyewitness of the shroud would think of including: the L-shaped pattern of four holes, the herringbone weave of the cloth, and the absence of thumbs. I also chose it because its date is established - 1192 - which predates the date assigned to the shroud by the C14 test. I could point to plenty of other depictions of Christ that have details peculiar to the shroud, but experts in iconography have already done that - I can dig up some references if you like.

What's interesting about reactions to the shroud is the position that it has to be a fake. Just has to be. Can't be anything else. If science can't prove it a fake now, it will prove it so in the future. There's nothing to consider.

Personally, making abstraction of whether I believe it genuine or not, I find the shroud fascinating as a scientific enigma. Take its three dimensionality. The shroud is the only picture in existence - out of any painting, drawing or photograph - that will produce a recognizable 3D shape when put under a VP8 image analyer. The VP8 interprets the light parts of an image as high elevation, and the dark parts as low elevation. Any normal picture seen in a VP8 becomes unrecognisable, some parts going up and some going down without any kind of relief that corresponds to the true shape of the object in the picture. The shroud is the only exception. You can't do that with camera taking a photo. Cheerio Da Vinci.

 

[Cathbad]

I don't know why the argument is "science" and "act of God". Doesn't this God use natural means for his miracles?

 

[Justin Swanton]

I don't know why the argument is "science" and "act of God". Doesn't this God use natural means for his miracles?

Sorry, don't follow you?

 

[JunkMonkey]

The VP8 interprets the light parts of an image as high elevation, and the dark parts as low elevation. Any normal picture seen in a VP8 becomes unrecognisable, some parts going up and some going down without any kind of relief that corresponds to the true shape of the object in the picture. The shroud is the only exception.

But let's look at the face 3D scanned.

Oh I am so convinced.

EDIT: Especially as this image is the result of scanning a reversed image of the shroud. If it was scanned as it is really with "the light parts of an image as high elevation, and the dark parts as low elevation" then the figure's face would be inside out. The dark pigment on high areas is exactly the sort of effect you get when you do something like a brass rubbing: highlights dark, recessed areas light. (With a dark pigment and a light cloth obviously. Use light medium on a black fabric and you'd get the reverse. )

 

[Justin Swanton]

Let's do this properly. This site gives details on the VP8 analysis of the shroud.

Here is the VP8 image of the shroud:

Notice the 3D relief. You can make out the features of the head, chest and arms. Sure it's not smooth and flawless like a Renaissance statue. That comes from the fact that the image is very faint and has noise interference from the damage to the cloth and the weave of the cloth itself. Point is you will get nothing like this from any regular painting, drawing or photo. Try it. You can download this software to imitate the effect of a VP8 (which admittedly is rather old technology by now).

There is actually one way you can replicate this three dimensional quality: putting a solid object on a scanner. The scanner will create a picture with the parts of the object nearer the glass lighter, and the parts further away darker. Put the picture under a VP8 and you will get an accurate 3D relief. So if Leonardo had a 7 foot scanner then we're halfway there. The problem then is to transfer that scanned image to the linen cloth...

Re the reversed image: that's another reason to discount forgery. The image on the shroud only 'works' if its colours are reversed, i.e. if it is treated as a photographic negative. Why would a mediaeval forger bother with that?

 

[dask]

Interesting but starting to get ugly.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I find the shroud fascinating as a scientific enigma

Which, indeed, it is. While radiocarbon analysis dates the cloth to around the 11th-12th centuries, the actual process that formed the image remains uncertain.

Which IMO qualifies the turin Shroud as something "Science cannot explain" without necessitating a polar argument of science vs faith.

The world is full of mystery - we are far from the pinnacle of scientific understanding in all things.


In the meantime, a friendly reminder to everyone in this thread to keep things civil.

 

[JunkMonkey]

I apologise for using the word which the mod removed.

I'm not arguing a science vs faith thing here. I'm arguing a science vs bad science thing.

My (badly made) point was that it is absurd to state that the shroud is the only image in the history of human image-making that will produce anything recognisable when shoved in a 3D scanner. Anyone can make an image that will do this with a coin, a piece of paper and a pencil.

 

[Justin Swanton]

My (badly made) point was that it is absurd to state that the shroud is the only image in the history of human image-making that will produce anything recognisable when shoved in a 3D scanner. Anyone can make an image that will do this with a coin, a piece of paper and a pencil.

True. If you put that image under a VP8 you'll get some recognisable relief. But notice that it's a flat object with a little bas-relief on it, i.e there's not much difference between the uppermost and lowermost parts. The image on the shroud has real depth. How would one take a statue, say, and get an image like the one above?

My original point was that an artist - especially a mediaeval artist - who draws or paints an image cannot create something that looks like a 2D representation of a human figure but still has the 3D characteristic that can be picked up by a VP8. You cannot do it with a camera either - lighting doesn't work that way.

 

[mosaix]

My original point was that an artist - especially a mediaeval artist - who draws or paints an image cannot create something that looks like a 2D representation of a human figure but still has the 3D characteristic that can be picked up by a VP8.

Yes they could. They obviously did. The shroud is the evidence.

The question is - how?

And the question will be answered - in time. And, no doubt, the answer will be refuted. Just as has the carbon dating because in the face of the evidence people will still want to believe something else.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Yes they could. They obviously did. The shroud is the evidence.

The question is - how?

And the question will be answered - in time. And, no doubt, the answer will be refuted. Just as has the carbon dating because in the face of the evidence people will still want to believe something else.

I got rather absorbed in looking at Turin Shroud blogs last night, and one in particular seemed quite interesting - namely that it was created by heating a metal statue of Jesus and then scorching it in a linen in a sand or snow box. i.e. they pressed the cold statue into a box of sand covered by a linen, then heated it up and pressed it down in the indentation. Repeat procedure on other side and at some point add real blood to make Christ's 'wounds'.

Some proponents of the theory have tried it out with smaller objects and they seem to get similar-esque results (in reference to the '3-D' effect - although I'm not really in a place to fully judge right now). Although the method sounds simple, in practice to get something like the Turin Shroud would take a lot of practical skill - but this should just take time - and the technology and knowhow is well within medieval artisans comfort zone.

I'll leave out all the details - if you are interested I can try and dig out the guys blog, but I don't want to get involved in a kerfuffle that, to be frank, I've not got time to read up on!