Soulforged
12-13-2005, 05:20
Probably many of you know about this now, but I'll post this anyway to show it to the rest.
Scientific evidence now appears to demonstrate that the old shroud is in fact the oldest photography known.
High above the altar of the Royal Chapel of Turin Cathedral, reposes a linen cloth which is believed by some to be the actual burial cloth of Jesus Christ. This historically unique relic, known popularly as the Holy Shroud of Turin, and which contains a highly naturalistic (albeit negative), two-fold image of a naked man has a pedigree stretching back to its first recorded exposition in Lirey in 1357 AD. In this regard, carbon dating tests undertaken by the radiocarbon laboratories of Oxford, Tucson and Zurich in 1988 seem to support the interpretation that the Shroud of Turin was produced sometime between 1260 - 1357 AD (Damon 1989:611-615).Those are the safe dates, very important to notice the veracity of the following paragraphs.
(...)In addition to this, it is important to keep in mind that only since 1898 (when Secondo Pia took the first photographs of this relic) has it been possible for anyone to appreciate that the image has many of the characteristics of a modern day photographic negative, ie all highlights are depicted as shaded areas, and conversely, all dark and shaded areas are shown as highlights. For example, if the polarity of this image is reversed (eg by making a photographic negative of the Shroud) one can clearly see a positive, seemingly three-dimensional image of a man. (See plates 3 and 4.) This positive version of the Shroud's image (contrary to its normal negative appearance) is highly naturalistic and detailed.(...)both in the frontal and the dorsal image, are covered with small regularly spaced brown marks.(These latter marks are normally interpreted as being skin abrasions caused by scourging).
(...)If it is to be accepted that the Shroud is, in fact, simply a painted/dyed/stained product of a medieval band of forgers, intent only on profit and gain, then why is our culture (with its highly sophisticated technology and expertise) still unable to explain its means of production, far less duplicate it? Also, (assuming as most people do, that this image was intended to be read as an imprint of Jesus Christ) why did its creators go to so much trouble over this relic when, conceivably, they could have quite easily satisfied the needs of the credulous with a production far less sophisticated than the Shroud actually is.
(...)In the latter case the scientists were especially keen to detect such trace elements as iron, potassium and phosphorous (the constituents of blood). (Pellicori 1981:39.)
(...)No pigment: From the evidence of numerous tests it is quite certain that no pigment was applied to the Shroud and the image is not caused by pigment either.
(...)Negative: The image acts like a photographic negative which is as visually coherent as a positive photograph when its polarity is reversed.
(...)(See Stevenson and Habermas 1981:84-6)The following are adressments to the previous conclusions of other authorities in the field with their respective refutations:(the words between quotes are a sintesys of the article)
The image contained in the Shroud was produced by an artist who used either paint, dye, stain or a form of surface printing.
"This one is easily discounted. Even if the artist achieved to apply an stain of ocre the fibrils would be stained through because of the water. Also the artist should have the person in his presence and at seven meters of the piece to make it detailed" (Distance calculated by the commission of 1978) "Also there's the fact of the negative detail, wich even if possible through forgery, is still not possible why an artist would do such things when he didn't knew even the principles of photography and he didn't need either such level of detail."
The image contained in the Shroud was produced by the actions of a paint/dye/blood/sweat covered corpse, body or statue coming into direct contact with the linen cloth
There four main theories for this formation of the photo:
*a natural chemical reaction between the Shroud and a corpse;
* a man-made impression caused by covering a red-ochre stained corpse with the Shroud;
* a man-made impression caused by covering a chemically-treated corpse, statue or a heated metal statue with the Shroud.
* a man-made impression caused by covering a heated metal relief sculpture with the Shroud."All of these theories (with the exception of the last one) can be safely excluded for one major reason, namely that if the Shroud came into contact with all areas of the hypothetical corpse/body/statue that appear in the actual image, then that image should be grossly distorted." Notes (http://www.petech.ac.za/shroud/notespho.htm) (link)
"The last possibility, viz: the image is a man-made impression caused by covering a heated metal low-relief sculpture with the Shroud, (although logically acceptable) is highly speculative. Not only would the style of such a relief sculpture (which would have to have been akin to a modern photographic plate) be totally unknown to 14th century artists, its production (even if possible) would have been far more of a technical tour de force than the Shroud itself. Indeed, this two-dimensional metal plate would have to have contained the three-dimensional data which the Shroud's image actually contains."
The image contained in the Shroud was produced by the actions of a chemical process Vignon termed vaporography, viz:
*Someone spread an unguent on the Shroud (such as myrrh and aloes) `thus rendering it sensitive to the action of organic emanations from the body' (Vignon, 1902:164);
*a corpse, still covered in a layer of uric acid-rich `morbid sweat' (the latter produced naturally by the body as a result of a highly stressful death) was laid out naked on the Shroud and then covered by the same;
*the urea, starting to ferment, produced carbonate of ammonia. The resultantammoniacal vapours rose upwards and oxidized the aloes, thus producing a negative image (similar to the kind produced by zinc vapours on a photographic plate)."The cloth of the Shroud (laid upon the cadaver) would not have suspended itself horizontally (literally in the air) in order to maintain a two-dimensional surface. The latter factor would be an absolute prerequisite to obtaining a vapour induced and still visually coherent three-dimensional image. Any distortion of the cloth's surface (including bodily contact) would have resulted in a distortion of the final image; and
The pressure of the body reposing on the Shroud would have produced a dorsal image quite unlike the carefully modulated image that in fact exists on this section of the Shroud. In other words the image of the buttocks, calves and ankles show no signs of having been compressed; and
Vaporographic images are caused by chemical changes that would be evident throughout the fibrils of the Shroud. The image on the Shroud is in fact visible only on the outer surface of the fibrils."
(...)However, surprisingly, no-one to date has seriously suggested that the Shroud could have been produced photographically. This is undoubtedly because such an outlandish notion would threaten our comfortable paradigm concerning the history, development and `progress' of art and science.
(...)In this regard, Thomas Wedgwood (1771 - 1805) and Sir Humphry Davy (1778 - 1829) are on record as having produced the first photographically related images, in the form of silhouettes and negative images of botanical specimens (ie contact copies of leaves) on both white paper and leather moistened with a silver nitrate solution before 1802.
William Henry Fox Talbot (1800 -1877) Like the other early pioneers of photography, first employed silver nitrate as a suitable light-sensitive chemical for his investigations. At first his products were simple negative images, but he went on to perfect a negative-positive process and is consequently accredited with being the discoverer of photography.
(...) ...a solution which seems bombastic and speculative only once it is placed within the context of our present-day understanding of medieval cultures and their respective levels of technology.
It has been discovered that a person can very easily make a permanent photographic negative image on linen which utilises chemicals and substances which collectively, were known to have existed at least by 1280 AD, viz:
silver nitrate (in solution), (4)
ammonia (in solution),
linen cloth (which naturally contains cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, pectin etc.,
natural quartz (optical quality)
magnifying glass or bi-convex lens.
It has been found that if any three-dimensional object (including a deceased human subject) (5) is set up in front of a camera obscura and is illuminated by direct sunlight over a period of a few days, (6) that a negative purple-brown image will form on linen cloth which has been impregnated with silver nitrate in solution. In addition, this image may be `fixed' simply by soaking the cloth in a mild solution of ammonia. During this process the image turns to faint straw-yellow. This image is in the negative and only forms on the upper fibrils of the linen material. In other words, no image is visible on the reverse side of the cloth. This image is extremely subtle and (like the images as viewed in a camera obscura with pin-hole apertures and apertures with a fixed lens) not easily discernable at close range. In addition the image is not a `snap-shot' of a particular moment in time (as is the case with most modern photographs). Rather it is the record of the passing of many days. This means that those parts of the body which have literally received more sun (such as the bridge of the nose, cheeks, eye brows etc) are registered more intensely on the cloth than those areas which were further away (such as the neck, sides of the head etc) or received less radiation (such as the sides of the nose).
Although an image may be focused onto a piece of linen cloth by means of a simple bi-convex lens and this image (viewed at the correct distance) is clearly visible with the naked eye (inside the camera obscura) it was discovered that in actual fact, the visible spectrum had no discernable affect on the silver-nitrate solution at all. Rather, it was the action of ultra violet radiation (specifically 320 - 190 nm) that actually formed the image over a period of many hours. In this regard a glass lens is quite useless for this technique since glass absorbs ultra violet light whereas quartz will not.
It was also discovered that if the subject (to be `photographed') was painted white that the image formation would take place in considerably less time. In short, increased reflectivity of the surface of the subject ensured that higher concentrations of ultra violet radiation would enter the camera obscura. In many ways the images that were achieved had all the characteristics of a severe suntan and were uncannily similar to the image on the Shroud of Turin (Cf plates 5,6 and 7). I am certain, that if a human subject could be found who has the identical physiognomy to the unfortunate man who died sometime before 1357 AD, that for all intents and purposes an identical image could be achieved today. Stigmata and other `blood' areas on the Shroud were most probably daubed on by brush in real blood (with or without a slight addition of red ochre) after the negative body image had been achieved (this latter image needing two separate exposures to obtain the frontal and dorsal views of the suspended man).
This is about it. If you don't want to read the whole article read only the three last paragraphs (wich is his main argumentation with written proof).
This not only demonstrates that the shroud has some real use but will also bring down the visions of medieval technology.
Hope this interest somebody.:san_wink:
The source: Link (http://www.petech.ac.za/shroud/isthe.htm)
Edit: Font of the last three paragraphs.
Scientific evidence now appears to demonstrate that the old shroud is in fact the oldest photography known.
High above the altar of the Royal Chapel of Turin Cathedral, reposes a linen cloth which is believed by some to be the actual burial cloth of Jesus Christ. This historically unique relic, known popularly as the Holy Shroud of Turin, and which contains a highly naturalistic (albeit negative), two-fold image of a naked man has a pedigree stretching back to its first recorded exposition in Lirey in 1357 AD. In this regard, carbon dating tests undertaken by the radiocarbon laboratories of Oxford, Tucson and Zurich in 1988 seem to support the interpretation that the Shroud of Turin was produced sometime between 1260 - 1357 AD (Damon 1989:611-615).Those are the safe dates, very important to notice the veracity of the following paragraphs.
(...)In addition to this, it is important to keep in mind that only since 1898 (when Secondo Pia took the first photographs of this relic) has it been possible for anyone to appreciate that the image has many of the characteristics of a modern day photographic negative, ie all highlights are depicted as shaded areas, and conversely, all dark and shaded areas are shown as highlights. For example, if the polarity of this image is reversed (eg by making a photographic negative of the Shroud) one can clearly see a positive, seemingly three-dimensional image of a man. (See plates 3 and 4.) This positive version of the Shroud's image (contrary to its normal negative appearance) is highly naturalistic and detailed.(...)both in the frontal and the dorsal image, are covered with small regularly spaced brown marks.(These latter marks are normally interpreted as being skin abrasions caused by scourging).
(...)If it is to be accepted that the Shroud is, in fact, simply a painted/dyed/stained product of a medieval band of forgers, intent only on profit and gain, then why is our culture (with its highly sophisticated technology and expertise) still unable to explain its means of production, far less duplicate it? Also, (assuming as most people do, that this image was intended to be read as an imprint of Jesus Christ) why did its creators go to so much trouble over this relic when, conceivably, they could have quite easily satisfied the needs of the credulous with a production far less sophisticated than the Shroud actually is.
(...)In the latter case the scientists were especially keen to detect such trace elements as iron, potassium and phosphorous (the constituents of blood). (Pellicori 1981:39.)
(...)No pigment: From the evidence of numerous tests it is quite certain that no pigment was applied to the Shroud and the image is not caused by pigment either.
(...)Negative: The image acts like a photographic negative which is as visually coherent as a positive photograph when its polarity is reversed.
(...)(See Stevenson and Habermas 1981:84-6)The following are adressments to the previous conclusions of other authorities in the field with their respective refutations:(the words between quotes are a sintesys of the article)
The image contained in the Shroud was produced by an artist who used either paint, dye, stain or a form of surface printing.
"This one is easily discounted. Even if the artist achieved to apply an stain of ocre the fibrils would be stained through because of the water. Also the artist should have the person in his presence and at seven meters of the piece to make it detailed" (Distance calculated by the commission of 1978) "Also there's the fact of the negative detail, wich even if possible through forgery, is still not possible why an artist would do such things when he didn't knew even the principles of photography and he didn't need either such level of detail."
The image contained in the Shroud was produced by the actions of a paint/dye/blood/sweat covered corpse, body or statue coming into direct contact with the linen cloth
There four main theories for this formation of the photo:
*a natural chemical reaction between the Shroud and a corpse;
* a man-made impression caused by covering a red-ochre stained corpse with the Shroud;
* a man-made impression caused by covering a chemically-treated corpse, statue or a heated metal statue with the Shroud.
* a man-made impression caused by covering a heated metal relief sculpture with the Shroud."All of these theories (with the exception of the last one) can be safely excluded for one major reason, namely that if the Shroud came into contact with all areas of the hypothetical corpse/body/statue that appear in the actual image, then that image should be grossly distorted." Notes (http://www.petech.ac.za/shroud/notespho.htm) (link)
"The last possibility, viz: the image is a man-made impression caused by covering a heated metal low-relief sculpture with the Shroud, (although logically acceptable) is highly speculative. Not only would the style of such a relief sculpture (which would have to have been akin to a modern photographic plate) be totally unknown to 14th century artists, its production (even if possible) would have been far more of a technical tour de force than the Shroud itself. Indeed, this two-dimensional metal plate would have to have contained the three-dimensional data which the Shroud's image actually contains."
The image contained in the Shroud was produced by the actions of a chemical process Vignon termed vaporography, viz:
*Someone spread an unguent on the Shroud (such as myrrh and aloes) `thus rendering it sensitive to the action of organic emanations from the body' (Vignon, 1902:164);
*a corpse, still covered in a layer of uric acid-rich `morbid sweat' (the latter produced naturally by the body as a result of a highly stressful death) was laid out naked on the Shroud and then covered by the same;
*the urea, starting to ferment, produced carbonate of ammonia. The resultantammoniacal vapours rose upwards and oxidized the aloes, thus producing a negative image (similar to the kind produced by zinc vapours on a photographic plate)."The cloth of the Shroud (laid upon the cadaver) would not have suspended itself horizontally (literally in the air) in order to maintain a two-dimensional surface. The latter factor would be an absolute prerequisite to obtaining a vapour induced and still visually coherent three-dimensional image. Any distortion of the cloth's surface (including bodily contact) would have resulted in a distortion of the final image; and
The pressure of the body reposing on the Shroud would have produced a dorsal image quite unlike the carefully modulated image that in fact exists on this section of the Shroud. In other words the image of the buttocks, calves and ankles show no signs of having been compressed; and
Vaporographic images are caused by chemical changes that would be evident throughout the fibrils of the Shroud. The image on the Shroud is in fact visible only on the outer surface of the fibrils."
(...)However, surprisingly, no-one to date has seriously suggested that the Shroud could have been produced photographically. This is undoubtedly because such an outlandish notion would threaten our comfortable paradigm concerning the history, development and `progress' of art and science.
(...)In this regard, Thomas Wedgwood (1771 - 1805) and Sir Humphry Davy (1778 - 1829) are on record as having produced the first photographically related images, in the form of silhouettes and negative images of botanical specimens (ie contact copies of leaves) on both white paper and leather moistened with a silver nitrate solution before 1802.
William Henry Fox Talbot (1800 -1877) Like the other early pioneers of photography, first employed silver nitrate as a suitable light-sensitive chemical for his investigations. At first his products were simple negative images, but he went on to perfect a negative-positive process and is consequently accredited with being the discoverer of photography.
(...) ...a solution which seems bombastic and speculative only once it is placed within the context of our present-day understanding of medieval cultures and their respective levels of technology.
It has been discovered that a person can very easily make a permanent photographic negative image on linen which utilises chemicals and substances which collectively, were known to have existed at least by 1280 AD, viz:
silver nitrate (in solution), (4)
ammonia (in solution),
linen cloth (which naturally contains cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, pectin etc.,
natural quartz (optical quality)
magnifying glass or bi-convex lens.
It has been found that if any three-dimensional object (including a deceased human subject) (5) is set up in front of a camera obscura and is illuminated by direct sunlight over a period of a few days, (6) that a negative purple-brown image will form on linen cloth which has been impregnated with silver nitrate in solution. In addition, this image may be `fixed' simply by soaking the cloth in a mild solution of ammonia. During this process the image turns to faint straw-yellow. This image is in the negative and only forms on the upper fibrils of the linen material. In other words, no image is visible on the reverse side of the cloth. This image is extremely subtle and (like the images as viewed in a camera obscura with pin-hole apertures and apertures with a fixed lens) not easily discernable at close range. In addition the image is not a `snap-shot' of a particular moment in time (as is the case with most modern photographs). Rather it is the record of the passing of many days. This means that those parts of the body which have literally received more sun (such as the bridge of the nose, cheeks, eye brows etc) are registered more intensely on the cloth than those areas which were further away (such as the neck, sides of the head etc) or received less radiation (such as the sides of the nose).
Although an image may be focused onto a piece of linen cloth by means of a simple bi-convex lens and this image (viewed at the correct distance) is clearly visible with the naked eye (inside the camera obscura) it was discovered that in actual fact, the visible spectrum had no discernable affect on the silver-nitrate solution at all. Rather, it was the action of ultra violet radiation (specifically 320 - 190 nm) that actually formed the image over a period of many hours. In this regard a glass lens is quite useless for this technique since glass absorbs ultra violet light whereas quartz will not.
It was also discovered that if the subject (to be `photographed') was painted white that the image formation would take place in considerably less time. In short, increased reflectivity of the surface of the subject ensured that higher concentrations of ultra violet radiation would enter the camera obscura. In many ways the images that were achieved had all the characteristics of a severe suntan and were uncannily similar to the image on the Shroud of Turin (Cf plates 5,6 and 7). I am certain, that if a human subject could be found who has the identical physiognomy to the unfortunate man who died sometime before 1357 AD, that for all intents and purposes an identical image could be achieved today. Stigmata and other `blood' areas on the Shroud were most probably daubed on by brush in real blood (with or without a slight addition of red ochre) after the negative body image had been achieved (this latter image needing two separate exposures to obtain the frontal and dorsal views of the suspended man).
This is about it. If you don't want to read the whole article read only the three last paragraphs (wich is his main argumentation with written proof).
This not only demonstrates that the shroud has some real use but will also bring down the visions of medieval technology.
Hope this interest somebody.:san_wink:
The source: Link (http://www.petech.ac.za/shroud/isthe.htm)
Edit: Font of the last three paragraphs.