Originally posted by Trackz
I said other than the magical face, or is that the only thing
That's really all it is. What else is there to be impressive?
....
Though I dislike the term 'magical.' It's also just as possible it wasn't originally a face at all.
Anyway, possible /= plausible, and 'can't rule it out' /= 'feasible.' You're grasping at straws.
Originally posted by DigiI was joking about magical, but I thought he was talking about the other subtle designs that are in it.
That's really all it is. What else is there to be impressive?....
Though I dislike the term 'magical.' It's also just as possible it wasn't originally a face at all.
Anyway, possible /= plausible, and 'can't rule it out' /= 'feasible.' You're grasping at straws.
Eh, I don't think there's any dispute it's a face, apparently it's a perfect negative of a face which is pretty hard even for modern artists..
Next I haven't even been arguing that it's legit, I've just been saying it's completely possible, you could make strong arguments for each side which is largely supported by what scientific researchers have found so far...so how is any of what I said grasping at straws, I've extrapolated nothing and I've just been repeating what the research has found.
Trackz, "strong arguments" are more than 1 researcher making some suppositions based on anomalous findings. Results need to be peer-reviewed and reproduced. The numerous pieces of evidence and studies placing it centuries after Jesus are a far stronger argument. We're not dealing with equivalent strengths of argument here.
I also have yet to see a link to this stuff. it's kind of hard to talk with you when the knowledge gap starts me in a position of ignorance. I can only say what I think based on your words, which haven't seemed convincing to me yet.
Originally posted by Digi
Trackz, "strong arguments" are more than 1 researcher making some suppositions based on anomalous findings. Results need to be peer-reviewed and reproduced. The numerous pieces of evidence and studies placing it centuries after Jesus are a far stronger argument. We're not dealing with equivalent strengths of argument here.I also have yet to see a link to this stuff. it's kind of hard to talk with you when the knowledge gap starts me in a position of ignorance. I can only say what I think based on your words, which haven't seemed convincing to me yet.
I didn't bring the topic up to argue with people but to ask people what they thought. If you haven't seen research then you haven't seen research, so I don't know why you hopped into a debate. I didn't bring it up to prove anything to anyone though...to deny that there are strong arguments for both sides though is just false, all you would have to do is a simple google search and you could see the multitude of theories for and against the shroud.
Originally posted by Trackz
...
1. I haven't been making a argument in favor of the shroud, I just brought it up to discuss
2. There have been multiple historians/researchers who have argued in favor of the ShroudI didn't bring the topic up to argue with people but to ask people what they thought. If you haven't seen research then you haven't seen research, so I don't know why you hopped into a debate. I didn't bring it up to prove anything to anyone though...to deny that there are strong arguments for both sides though is just false, all you would have to do is a simple google search and you could see the multitude of theories for and against the shroud.
You were the one touting the study. Would it kill you to share what you're talking about instead of asking me to play google roulette?
I've seen research on the shroud, just not the specific research you reference. I don't have the time to go on a wild goose chase every time I'm not up to speed on a specific point. Throw us a bone here.
Originally posted by inimalist
totally off topic:I've gone to blood doner clinics in an attempt to medically extract some blood from myself in order to recreate the shroud
I cant imagine im the only person in history to have that idea........
[they said no every time btw, so dont hold your breath on the inimalist shroud]
Did you show them your Scientist card?
Are you peeps talking about the Shroud of Turin? Cos that was easily proved false years ago.
A blood/sweat stain on cloth lain over a face would leave a 3-D image; when lain flat (as the shroud is), that image(face) would be "moon-faced" in 2-D. You can do it at home with a napkin and a marker/paint.
If someone already covered this, apologies.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Did you show them your Scientist card?
the capital "S" too
they wouldn't hear it
I had one volunteer who agreed that it was possibly the safest way, but wouldn't be willing to give me my own blood
Originally posted by Robtard
Are you peeps talking about the Shroud of Turin? Cos that was easily proved false years ago.
indeed
Originally posted by DigiIf you want to see the study, ask to see the study instead of debating with with me if it's legit or not, not everything has to be a pissing contest.
You were the one touting the study. Would it kill you to share what you're talking about instead of asking me to play google roulette?I've seen research on the shroud, just not the specific research you reference. I don't have the time to go on a wild goose chase every time I'm not up to speed on a specific point. Throw us a bone here.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaoscheck out the two links i posted for Digi. I think it says something about that in them, they're pretty informative regardless.
When did the prove it wasn't an artist.I can imagine proving it wasn't a painter, but it's a work of art whoever made it was an artist.
you might be right, they know it's not a painter though.
Here I think this addresses it:
If We Wish to Think it is a Fake Picture of Jesus?If we want to believe that the Shroud is not genuine then we have to consider some basic questions. How did the faker of relics accomplish this.
How did a faker of relics alter the chemical properties of the carbohydrate coating to create the color and how did he do so with such artistic precision -- on both sides of the cloth?
The history of art is the story of the evolution of styles, techniques, methods and technology. Every work of art and fakery is no exception. Every form of art and craft has precedents. When a new technique is discovered it is exploited. Over time the technique is refined and improved. Where are the precedents for pictures such as those that we find on the Shroud? Where are the other works in this new-found technology? Are we to imagine that some genius invented a new way to create pictures, that a single picture was made and the technology was lost to history?
How did he create a suitable negative picture hundreds of years before the discovery of photographic negativity? How did he know that he had it right? How, without a camera and film, could he test his work? The negativity is extraordinarily precise and correct. Was he simply lucky?
The bigger question is why? What was his purpose? What was his motive? If we are to ask why he created an extraordinarily complex chemical picture, in negative, we must ask some other questions.
Why a negative image when a positive image would be more convincing -- keep in mind that gradual tone negative images were unknown?
Why did he go against conventional expectations of his era? Why did he create a picture with wounds from nails that went through Jesus' wrists? All art and all expectation throughout medieval Europe showed Jesus nailed to his cross through the palms of his hands.
Why is Jesus shown completely naked, unlike in all artistic depictions everywhere throughout the history of Christianity?
Despite many attempts to do so, no one has found or invented an artistic or crafty technique that can reproduce even a few of the characteristics of the images. But that does not mean, that in the future, someone will not find a method to create such images. But if someone does so, the tenacious question will remain: How likely is it that there would be such a one-of-a-kind work of art for which there are no known precedents; created by methods that were never again exploited?Any method that might be devised must be scientifically credulous, fit into the history of art and conform to the cultural expectations in which the technology was supposedly employed. If not, it will be seen as newly invented art designed to mimic an otherwise unexplained natural process or a supernatural event. The skeptic has a dilemma. To believe that the Shroud is fakery he or she must rely on an underlying belief that transcends scientific fact.
The skeptic has a dilemma. To believe that the Shroud is fakery he or she must rely on an underlying belief that transcends scientific fact.
Complete nonsense, suggesting a blatant agenda. That we don't know how it was done only tells us that we don't know how it was done, not that it must have required mystical powers.
I've had his debate with Deadline. Go watch a magic show. Can you explain how they do every trick in details? If you can't does that force you to admit that they have transcended scientific fact?
Personally the "they used a statue" hypothesis seems perfectly reasonable.