Yet, Wilson’s theory doesn’t work better that Allen’s one.
Oh, look. Someone wrote some words on the internet, therefore you’re right.
And so it goes…
1 Like
Did you read the piece? If yes, how do you answer to its arguments ? To take only one example, how do you deal with the fact that the image formation under the shadow shroud theory doesn’t square with the chemistry responsible for the image on the shroud?
No. I am under no obligation to read every word written by some crackpot on the internet. The fact that you have recommended it only makes it less likely that it will be worth my while. If the image was created by the shadow image or some other technique doesn’t really make much difference to me.
3 Likes
I think it disposes of the glass shadow hypothesis quite handily. Even crackpots can make valid arguments. And the article doesn’t mention this, but the painting on glass would have to be a negative image to produce the negative image on the shroud, and who would do that?
1 Like
It did seem an unnecessarily complicated suggestion, when it remains more than plausible that someone just painted an image on the cloth to resemble what people would expect a shroud that covered Jesus to look like. I’m not sure of the need for any hypothesis more elaborate than that.
1 Like
Somehow the idea that the shadow shroud hypothesis is implaubile for chemical reasons of one flavour or another, while a resurrection-specific neutron blast magically deflating the carbon date is still on the table, continues to amuse me.
5 Likes
Interesting article. I have also watched this video with a presentation by Paolo di Lazzaro (the expert handpicked to evaluate whether the 1 million dollar challenge is met), where he actually shows how to reproduce the image effect (with the correct underlying chemistry and the right image depth in the fibres) by ultraviolet light exposure on Linen:
If I understood him correctly, they used a high energy UV laser beam in very short pulses to produce the same chemical coloring to the same depth as the image on the shroud. He then argues they couldn’t have had a laser in the middle ages. Well doh, but that’s not the only way to get UV light.
This actually puts some merit to the idea that the image was produced by sunlight exposure (which obviously is partly UV light), but it would require that the parts that haven’t been colored due to UV light were the parts that were covered.
Again, it is entirely possible that someone discovered that a clean white piece of linen, when left exposed to long-term sun light (length of exposure compensates for the lack of intensity the laser has), would tend to become the brownish-yellow in the exposed parts.
So in effect yes, a negative image. Someone would have to cover the remainder of the cloth with something (doesn’t have to be glass of course, just anything that prevents UV from getting through, which I speculate could even be sand). Then you could basically “draw” the Jesus image in the sand, possibly just by brushing sand away with a brush, leaving the parts to be colored. That would also explain the grading dotted intensity(“half tone” effect which Paolo di Lazzaro speaks about in the video) seen in parts of the shroud as a byproduct of the grainy substance used to cover the shroud.
Well assuming the facts Paolo di Lazzaro speaks to are correct, the color of the image in the shroud isn’t actually a pigment painted on the shroud, but comes from a sort of chemical alteration of the linen fibres itself, which is chemically consistent with a sort of caramelization of the fibre molecules that results from exposure of the linen fibres to UV light. That means the image can’t have been painted on.
It also means the image can’t have been produced by bleaching out the rest of the cloth as suggested in the shadow shroud hypothesis.
But that doesn’t rule out a sunlight exposure-based hypothesis, I think.
I see that you are not weighing evidence, you are merely ignoring most of it.
From that, I conclude that you have an utterly antiscientific worldview.
1 Like
Hi John
What am I ignoring?
The beam in your eye prevents you from seeing the many elephants in the room.
Nobody’s mentioned time travel yet so that’s a plus.
Is the antecedent of “it” not clear to you?
I think the sunlight exposure-based hypothesis can be safely dismissed for many reasons, maybe the most straightforward one being that, according to Lazzaro, the total UV radiation power required to color a surface corresponding to a human body could not be delivered even by the most powerful UV laser built at the time he performed his experiments.
It’s not clear to me that you are doing more than making an unsupported claim as evidenced by your vague answer. Disagreement on the significants of facts is not ignoring facts
I wouldn’t assume that, though. As far as I can tell, di Lazzaro has never actually examined the “shroud”, and the claims regarding how the image was produced are all suspect since it appears no one with the appropriate expertise has actually examined it. The method STURP used was to dab at the cloth with pieces of sticky tape, then analyze whatever was picked up. The guy tasked with that job, Walter McCrone, concluded that the samples contained pigments and other materials that would have been commonly used by Medieval artists. The rest of the group was upset by this finding which resulted in a rift that remains among “shroud” enthusiasts.
At this point, it looks like that was the one crack anyone had at determining how the image was produced, and unfortunately the wrong people for the job were chosen. The field, therefore, is left wide open for any number of hypotheses, of various levels of improbability.
1 Like
Hi Gil
Take a look that Ruckers website. His theory takes more of the data into account (carbon date of the Sudarium) than Rogers reweave theory.
That’s just nonsense, though.
That’s just a statement of the “Resurrection by Nuclear Fission” theory. It’s nonsense from start to finish.
4 Likes