The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends • Hacker News Board

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#81

Post by svieira » Fri, Oct 18, 2024, 7:16 PM UTC

appguy wrote: post #20

Something that amazes me about The Shroud of Turin is that if it was created in the 14th century, how did they create a photographic negative 400 years before the first known photographic negative was created in 1826 by Nicephore Niepce. It’s the most studied artifact in history and still no one knows how The Shroud was created.

Not only a photographic negative, a photographic negative with proper depth that was painted on individual sides of the fibers of the shroud by something (likely heat). The fibers that are colored on this shroud are colored only on one side and they themselves are colored. There is no chemical deposition upon them, at least none visible to an electron microscope.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#82

Post by FrustratedMonky » Fri, Oct 18, 2024, 7:16 PM UTC

hluska wrote: post #40

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"no point in looking for meaning." You say it I think sarcastically. I'm not sure. But not spending a life going down rabbit holes that are most likely false, is not giving up on searching for meaning. It is just switching to more fruitful avenues to spend the limited time we have on looking for meaning.

Why do these conversations inevitably move into insults? As soon as humans get into the subject of belief, someone always says something like “it’s just switching to more fruitful avenues.” If something works for you, that’s great. But why do people automatically say that their way is better? Does being right really matter? We could have a really great world if we’d just let people believe in whatever works for them.

Go back and read the parent .

What I was responding to was the sentiment of doubling down on mysticism. "My parents beliefs are my beliefs, and that is correct, and so that's what I'm going to believe, and then teach my kids". No opportunity to grow.

Was pointing out that, a lot of people really spend a lot of years going in weird directions, so why not pause, look around, and figure out a better way forward.

Really, this seems to be the kind of response I get when others want the "freedom means free as long as they agree with me". But suggest thinking differently, and boom, can't have that kind of stuff happening, "not that kind of freedom".

Like if someone was a Satan worshiper. And I suggested reading the bible. Then that is good, people should be free to suggest that, and to change.

But if someone is evangelical. And I suggest that Satan might have made some good points, or the Bible actually allows for abortion. Then boom, that isn't freedom, you are corrupting people, we have to stop that.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#83

Post by svieira » Fri, Oct 18, 2024, 7:17 PM UTC

codingdave wrote: post #42

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.

Why would they need the specific concept of a photo negative? A negative is just a reversal of light/dark. They knew of such things. They knew primary colors, too. Painting and mixing colors is not exactly modern -- it has been around for many centuries. Artists practice playing with light and color as basic exercises, and have done so for hundreds if not thousands of years. Switching light and dark is a fairly basic…

It was not dyed - the fibers that are discolored are discolored only on one side.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#84

Post by julianeon » Fri, Oct 18, 2024, 7:17 PM UTC

AStonesThrow wrote: post #3

Whether it is 14th century or an authentic relic, I still believe it's simply amazing to behold. We can explain what it's made of and guess at how old it is, and we can guess at its provenance and history, but there's simply no good explanation of how it was imprinted. The photo-negative imprint is nothing short of miraculous to me. Perhaps it's a miraculous forgery--doesn't matter anymore. The crucifix in a local pa…

There's a conflict in your paragraph I wanted to point out.

> but there's simply no good explanation of how it was imprinted.

That's a strong claim! You are implying there is a miracle here, something science can't explain.

I can contest that, as you surely know. Imagine I produce an explanation here...

> But don't tell us what to believe.

The problem is that I can't produce an explanation without implying you should believe it: that's what an explanation is.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#85

Post by svieira » Fri, Oct 18, 2024, 7:18 PM UTC

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #67

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.

"being capable of creating a photo negative" You're calling it a photo negative. It's not a photo negative. It's a painting that has shadows and lights inverted. "the image on the shroud is not made of paint" It's made of red paint.

Red paint that isn't visible under an electron microscope is some pretty advanced paint.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#86

Post by LeoPanthera » Fri, Oct 18, 2024, 7:22 PM UTC

francisofascii wrote: post #72

This reminds me of the Star Trek TNG episode "Rightful Heir", where Kahless returned to unite the Klingon people. It turned out he was a clone and not the "real" or original Kahless, but in the end, it did not matter. Faith and spirituality transcends historical authenticity.

That's a fun little plot that extends into Star Trek DS9, in "The Sword of Kahless" they find the sword, but this time it turns out that it actually is the original sword, but instead of uniting over it, it threatens to divide the Klingon people, and so they leave it drifting in space.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#87

Post by svieira » Fri, Oct 18, 2024, 7:28 PM UTC

tsimionescu wrote: post #10

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #2

I don't get why it couldn't just be anybody's shroud. Didn't everyone at that time get a shroud.

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…

> you would have to explain how the image on it was produced

It was produced by Jesus Christ at His resurrection. He left it for us to see and ensured that its being set aside was recorded in Scripture (not with the others but rolled up in a separate place - https://biblehub.com/john/20-7.htm).

If you mean "how did Jesus create the image"? Well, I don't know, we can look at the image (as some have) and come up with some theories. My favorite one is the one that says it was in the moment that the angel rolled the stone away from the tomb Jesus briefly shone with light, imprinting on the shroud the image of His suffering. That's certainly not the only way it could have happened, of course, but I think it's a very fitting image.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#88

Post by svieira » Fri, Oct 18, 2024, 7:29 PM UTC

ted_dunning wrote: post #73

d_theorist wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever else you might want to say about the shroud, one thing we know for sure is that it is not a painting. Analysis shows that the image is extremely superficial, only penetrating about 200nm into the fibres of the cloth. This is inconsistent with a painted image.

Could easily have been sprayed on. This is a common technique done with a mouth tube in older times, a bulb sprayer later and an air brush most recently.

There is nothing on the fibers that is visible under a high powered microscope. Paint (even spray-paint) is quite visibly distinct from the fiber it covers.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#89

Post by InsideOutSanta » Fri, Oct 18, 2024, 7:35 PM UTC

svieira wrote: post #85

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"being capable of creating a photo negative" You're calling it a photo negative. It's not a photo negative. It's a painting that has shadows and lights inverted. "the image on the shroud is not made of paint" It's made of red paint.

Red paint that isn't visible under an electron microscope is some pretty advanced paint.

It's red ochre.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#90

Post by InsideOutSanta » Fri, Oct 18, 2024, 7:35 PM UTC

Fidelix wrote: post #77

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"being capable of creating a photo negative" You're calling it a photo negative. It's not a photo negative. It's a painting that has shadows and lights inverted. "the image on the shroud is not made of paint" It's made of red paint.

Not true at all. No red paint in it. This has been conclusively, scientifically debunked multiple times.

Please provide sources.