Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

michaelshermer.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 163 posts

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#101

Post by briffid »

tristramb wrote: post #92
d_theorist wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they weren’t dumb, but having a great understanding of shadows is a far cry from being capable of creating a photo negative. They didn’t even have the concept of a photo negative. How would they even have thought to achieve such a thing? And for what purpose? And, by the way, the image on the shroud is not made of paint, so contemporary proficiency with painting techniques hardly seems relevant.

It could be survivorship bias. All the fake shrouds with botched images were recognised as fakes and thrown out long ago. Only this one which happens to look vaguely realistic has been kept.

Plus what must have been lost in 500 years, all photonegative pictures, fragments, descriptions, recipes, any references for such imagery etc. It is very strange that this is the only image that remained. And an image of a nude Jesus from the back. For which no other instance is known anywhere.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#102

Post by kjkjadksj »

pkphilip wrote: post #76
tsimionescu wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, the thing is not a shroud, it's essentially a 14th century painting, created as one of a myriad fake relics for money and fame. Second of all, if you believed it were a real ancient shroud, you would have to explain how the image on it was produced. Corpses don't leave images on shrouds, and even if it were true that everyone in ancient Israel were wrapped in a linen shroud when they died, people certai…

1. There is no known painting technique - even now, for getting this image onto the shroud. There were no pigments or dyes in sufficient quantity to explain the image on the shroud. 2. About the second point - it remains a mystery but that in no way makes the shroud itself a fake.

Uv damage perhaps? Maybe make the imagery with selective application of sand and leaving it in sunlight?

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#103

Post by nsxwolf »

atombender wrote: post #56
wrzuteczka wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These 8 laboratories shared the same sample collected from a corner of the shroud. The priests handling the shroud would always hold it by its corners. So the explanation is not as weak as it may sound.

The Carbon 14 dating process is not sensitive to pollution from, say, the sweat or sebum on the hands of people handling it. What's more, the sample was vigorously cleaned before analysis. The article (the one that this thread is about, not the study) addresses exactly this. The author makes the point is C14 dating is widely misunderstood by non-experts who still decide it's within their expertise to find fault with…

It's susceptible to contamination from millennia-newer cloth fibers though!

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#105

Post by teolandon »

d_theorist wrote: post #68
codingdave wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea, but that seems completely orthogonal to what technique was used.

It’s extremely relevant to the question, which is what the negative nature of the image has to tell us about the relative probabilities of the two hypotheses (miraculous hypothesis vs fraud hypothesis). In my view, it is a big problem for the fraud hypothesis because you have to explain why and how it was done. At a time when the idea of a photo negative was entirely unknown, and when there are no other examples of n…

I don't see why the miraculous hypothesis gets to get away with not explaining why and how the miracle was done. Why should we reject it being a fraud just because we don't know how it was done, while accepting a miracle which we also don't know how was done?

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#106

Post by atombender »

nsxwolf wrote: post #103
atombender wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Carbon 14 dating process is not sensitive to pollution from, say, the sweat or sebum on the hands of people handling it. What's more, the sample was vigorously cleaned before analysis. The article (the one that this thread is about, not the study) addresses exactly this. The author makes the point is C14 dating is widely misunderstood by non-experts who still decide it's within their expertise to find fault with…

It's susceptible to contamination from millennia-newer cloth fibers though!

Did nobody here read the article? The author covered this:

> … to distort the result by 13 centuries the threads employed in the mending would have had to have been more numerous than the threads of the part to be mended

Furthermore, the samples were examined by two textile experts, and later by a lab that looked for trace fabrics that could have affected the radiocarbon dating, and they all confirmed that the sample was the original fabric.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#107

Post by kcplate »

NateEag wrote: post #78
patrickmay wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've got the burden of proof backwards there. It is absolutely up to those who claim the shroud is that of Jesus to prove it.

He's describing the average Christian's perspective, not saying what he himself thinks.

Correct, but it’s fair to say I don’t have an opinion on its validity at all. It may be, or it may not…neither of those states affect my own personal convictions.

The shroud isn’t really for the unbeliever, it’s for the believer…as a reinforcement of their faith.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#108

Post by smeej »

teolandon wrote: post #105
d_theorist wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s extremely relevant to the question, which is what the negative nature of the image has to tell us about the relative probabilities of the two hypotheses (miraculous hypothesis vs fraud hypothesis). In my view, it is a big problem for the fraud hypothesis because you have to explain why and how it was done. At a time when the idea of a photo negative was entirely unknown, and when there are no other examples of n…

I don't see why the miraculous hypothesis gets to get away with not explaining why and how the miracle was done. Why should we reject it being a fraud just because we don't know how it was done, while accepting a miracle which we also don't know how was done?

I think it's pretty common (maybe even required?) not to know how a miracle was done. The whole point seems to be that it was not done by known means.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#109

Post by smeej »

card_zero wrote: post #47
brentpen wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recent research has discovered the "stroboscopic effect" in the image. The hands and feet are moving when the image was imprinted on the shroud. Strobe lights didn't exist in the 14th century either.

Which priest or other religious zealot with a vested interest found this out? Also, is the implication that undead Jesus was twitching rapidly and flashing on and off? That is kind of cool, perhaps I should get religion.

Setting aside the unnecessary snide commentary, if the image were made when Jesus was coming back from the dead, starting to move, potentially fitfully, as one would who hadn't moved for several days, would seem pretty normal to me.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#110

Post by Vecr »

briffid wrote: post #99
agarren wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Pray codex is listed under “fringe theories” in the Wikipedia Shroud entry. That certainly make it wrong, but it does make it a little more suspect than the c14 dating criticism. The c14 contamination arguments seem more than adequately addressed in the entire last 3rd of the article.

Yes, the wikipedia article makes an argumentation error. Even if the Pray Codex doesn't show the shroud, it contains a very unique depiction of a nude Jesus. So the painter of the codex with high probability have seen the exact same picture as what is on the Shroud now. This doesn't prove that the shroud is earlier than the Pray codex, but this is something an unbiased scientist have to try to answer. I find it very…

'Cause A caused both B and C? If you see the codex and the shroud contain the "same" information, doesn't it seem reasonably likely they got it from the same place? And people weren't bad at copying back then, so the "same place" could really be all over.
Post reply on HN