Diogenes
Much appreciated thank you
I love learning new things:D
Cite?
I read a very interesting book on this a while back- two guys reasoned that perhaps the reason the shroud had characteristics of a negative image is because it *was *a negative image. They made a camera obscura and used chemicals that would have been available to a medieval forger, and got a very close duplicate of the shroud image that also showed the negative effect. It also explained very well why the shroud appears to be made of three different images: the entire back of the a body, a head, and the headless front of a body. I don’t think it got any traction among scholars but their results were striking in their similarity to the shroud.
But is it actually a negative image at all? Or is it an image that is just contact print (or something hand painted with that effect as the intent) of a body or statue, or relief carving?
There’s not much point trying to explain why it’s a negative image if it isn’t really a negative image.
No it isn’t.
This has nothing to do with AB blood types. It’s about when O separated into three different groups of A, B and O.
Look at the McCrone material in the 2nd link of my first post.
I’m not sure how one would paint something with the intent to give it a negative effect. Notice that the pictures you see of the shroud are almost always negative images, because it shows so much more detail as a negative than as a positive. So the painter would have had to have been painting blind, essentially. Since he was painting a positive image, how would he have been able to see the details he was putting into the negative image?
DtC- are there any other examples of painting with red ochre that show a negative effect like that of the shroud?
That I don’t know. I know that McCrone and others have produced very close replicas using those pigments, but I don’t know the exact technique for getting the “negative” effect. I do think that’s an accidental effect of aging on the piece, though, not something that was intended by the artist.
The “negative” effect, from what I’ve read, is due to some effect on the underlying fibers of the cloth. In color “positive” pictures of the Shroud, they look yellowish-brownish. Reportedly – and I have no reason to disbelieve this – no one noticed the “negative” appearance until the shroud was first photographed, at which point the interesting appearance of the negative made a profound impact.
I can’t believe that any medieval forgers would go out of their way to make a true “negative” – aside from block printing, the concept didn’t even exist. It seems likely to me that, as DtC has suggested, the forger simply painted a positive image, the paint of which has worn and flaked off through time*, except for some “blood” that has been applied. More than likely, the paint or its 'vehicle" had the effect of drying, distorting, shrinking, or otherwise altering the underlying flax fibers, with the fortuitous result that it gave the appearance (especially to modern eyes, which would appreciate it) of a photographic negative.
As has been pointed out often enough, it’s not a perfect negative image, and you’d be hard pressed to explain why an actual shroud laid over a body would pick up the impressions the way it has. If it was in contact with the body, the shroud ought to be distorted by that. If some “burst of energy” or chemical diffusion imprinted the Shroud, you’d expect the image to be blurred out, not so perfectly imaged. Imagining that the image was painted on, as normally seen, would explain such a distortion-free image perfectly. Especially if the flesh tones were the ones that affected the underlying cloth so much.
*It’s not as if the cloth has been handled with extreme care all these years. We know, for instance, that it has actually been washed.
I meant with the intent of making it look like a contact print.
As far as the negative effect, it looks to me like it’s a rubbing. The parts of the face sculpture placed underneath the cloth that were higher up would be hit with more pigment than crevices. Since it was dark pigment used on a white cloth, the negative image would be appear “normal,” with crevices dark and peaks light.
That would work with the bas-relief hypothesis.
Why does McCrone think the painter painted the image of the man impossibly tall and different heights in the front and back images- the image on the back is 6’10" and the image on the front is 6’8"? The reason for the difference being that the (front of the) head is impossibly small for the body. The normal ratio for a head to a body is 1:7.5-1:8.5, while on the shroud it is over 1:9. Plus the head doesn’t look like it’s screwed on right- it’s cocked at a weird angle and seems to float on its own with a noticeable gap between it and the body (only on the front image though, not on the back.) Also, the image of the back of the head is wider than that of the front. Hard to believe a painter of such skill would make such obvious mistakes.
Of course, a photographic composite of three pictures explains all that quite handily- a picture of the back of an entire body, a picture of the front of the body minus the head, and a third picture of a face.
Or three different bas-reliefs.
- Yes, it is- the whole title of his book is “The Eat Right 4 Your Type Complete Blood Type Encyclopedia” or as you put it “The Blood Type Encyclopedia”. He is the only author with any title like The Blood Type Encyclopedia. The cite for your wiki quote is " “Peter D’Adamo: ‘‘Blood groups and the history of peoples.’’ In: ‘‘Complete Blood Type Encyclopedia.’’”. Dadamo.com. 1999-01-15. http://www.dadamo.com/knowbase/theory/anthro.htm. Retrieved 2009-04-12."
Peter D’Adamo is the author of your cite. He is the author of The Blood Type Encyclopedia, aka The Eat Right 4 Your Type Complete Blood Type Encyclopedia". If he isn’t pleas cite the author of your book. If Peter D’Adamo isn;t the author of your cite, then someone has plagiarized someone, as those exact words appear in Peter D’Adamo’s book. Wiki has him as the author of those words right there in footnote 70.
- Which is when AB came about. Human evolution does not work in the period of hundreds of years. Read the entire linked cite from PubMed.
Ok, then the cite is bullshit. I thought it was excerpting from something else called The Complete Blood Type Encyclopedia (which is what I called it when I linked to it). I retract the AB blood type point, but it’s all still moot since there hasn’t been any blood found on the shroud, nor would it prove anything it if there had been.
I agree the Shroud- although wonderful and mysterious in ways- is hardly the Shroud of Jesus. Blood is doubtful too, but not that doubtful.
In essence, I think its really this: “Woah, this image looks totally like Jesus!”
Its a striking image, and it fits our artistic notions of Jesus to varying degrees. In fact, since it may well have been intended as a depiction of Jesus from the get-go, it kinda makes sense.
There’s one theory that the Shroud is the basis for our artistic depictions of Jesus.
Yes, leading to a terrible mishap.
My friend Luigi Garlaschelli at the University of Pavia in Italy has achieved what I think is the best reproduction yet of the Shroud.
Here’s a Reuters article about it (with pic, click for full size, the reproduction is on the right).
Here’s a CNN article about it (if you didn’t know, you would think the first image in that article was the Shroud).
Finally, this page contains lots of links about the project, including a lengthy document you can download about Luigi’s method and the science behind it, and several comparison pictures.
Of course none of this proves anything about how the Shroud was made. It only tells us something about how it could have been made.