|
A Holology Special
Report, written by Freydis
The shroud of Turin
is an intriguing relic, and it turns out to be one of those
cases where truth is far more interesting than the myth. And
perhaps I've already tipped my hand here, but most intelligent
and unbiased debate now centers on the strong conclusion that
the Shroud of Turin is a manufactured icon, albeit meticulously
crafted. Indeed the official Vatican interpretation has always
been that it's merely symbolic, although many Christians and
others of faith sincerely disagree. And as usual the mainstream
mass-media will focus on the extraneous information leading one
to almost believe the thing is legitimate. Error-laden
dating methods, contradictory interpretations, pollen grains,
even tedious studies of the blood type of the stains!
In case you don't
know, the shroud of Turin is purported by some to be the
original linen cloth used to wrap Jesus Christ's body after he
was removed from the cross some 2,000 years ago.
|
Joseph [of Arimathea] took
the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it
in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock.
- Matthew 27:59-60
|
|
|
|
Photo-positive image
of the Shroud including burn marks from a Church fire. |
|
The image therefore was
evidently created by the sweat and other bodily fluids
excreted from the broken body of Christ and imprinted
onto the cloth, either literally in the standard surface
contact way or perhaps mystically through radiated power
from the body. The actual image is an optical negative,
and it wasn't until the shroud was photographed and the
negative viewed that it gained its modern notoriety
because the Christ image became apparent.
Two primary questions stand
out in my mind upon first sight of the artifact. The
first and perhaps most serious obstacle to the
legitimacy of the shroud is the physical shape of the
image. It defies logic because it's so accurately
proportioned in the shape of a man, despite the
geometric impossibility of crafting an accurate two
dimensional representation of a three dimensional
object. Think of a globe, every map has to be distorted
in some manner by virtue of the process of warping a
sphere onto a plane, this is why in the most common
Mercator projection Greenland appears so gigantic.
If the body was wrapped tightly
with a cloth it's possible to get enough contact with the skin
to create a chemical imprint but by doing that you will
necessarily not have contact with indented portions of the body
such as the eyes. Thus the facial image would only consist of
points of contact such as a nose print a forehead print and a
chin print. Conversely, if the shroud was wrapped loosely enough
to catch the indented parts of the body and face then the image
would have to be distorted, rendering a very un-human looking
image to the casual observer.
The second problem concerns the
image itself: how was it imprinted, and how did it get to be
(according to official analysis) only on the surface of the
fabric? Any fluid chemical would logically seep through the
fabric creating not a consistent coloring but discolored
blotches and pools, in other words anything but
a literal human image. Oddly enough the blood marks do
behave this way, however the rest of the body image is purely a
yellowed surface effect.
One very simple yet remarkably
ingenious method to create the surface image effect is camera
obscura, the pinhole camera of science fair fame. Camera obscura
is a neat trick that formed the basis of the earliest
photographs. Light passing through a hole into a darkened room
or inside a box will form an upside down image on the opposite
wall of the world outside. By using a lens in front of the
pinhole the image can be focused. Recording the image is the
tricky part. Silver iodide has the useful property of being
permanently altered by light. Silver salt crystals are used in
film to make photographs. The linen acted as the photographic
paper, a white high albedo statue provided the Christ image, sun
as the light source and painted on blood as the realistic
detailing.
It is acknowledged that the image
which appears on the Shroud of Turin is caused by oxidation to
the upper fibrils of the cloth (Allen, 1995a:21-35). This
oxidation has been shown by Allen's research to be easily
duplicated by the effects of photochemical degradation as caused
by the application of a silver salt (such as silver sulphate),
onto an ester (such as linen). The focused image of a
sun-illuminated corpse or body-cast will produce a shroud-like
image after eight to twenty four hours of exposure, which makes
use of an optically clear bi-convex quartz lens. After exposure,
all reduced silver may be removed by the agency of ammonium
hydroxide. The resultant images contain no dye, powder, stain or
pigment, contain three-dimensional information, are negative and
are only visually coherent at a distance in excess of three to
four metres. In this regard, these experimental images, which
are produced by use of materials, apparatus and chemicals which
collectively are known to have been available to both Islamic
and Christian scholars by at least the thirteenth century may be
safely compared with those found on the Shroud of Turin,
addressing as they do, each and every image characteristic as
identified by the STURP committee in 1977. As is the case with
the Shroud of Turin, the images produced by this method have a
slightly top-lit quality and display visual distortions in
keeping with spherical aberration as caused by the agency of a
lens.
From: The Shroud of Turin and
the Singlet Oxygen Fallacy, by Professor Nicholas P. Allen
Although radiocarbon dating is
often problematic on items like this, most researchers conclude
it was made between 1260 and 1390 AD. In addition, burn marks
from a church fire place a limit on how new it can be.
Personally I wouldn't put too much into the radiocarbon dating
for something as recent as the Shroud because the error factor
is too spread; if it was a million years old - different story.
Regardless, if it's 2,000 years old, that's one miraculously
durable piece of fabric.
From the Church's standpoint it
would be foolish to set this icon up as something legitimizing
Christianity, the story of Jesus Christ crucified. However for
religious followers, being superstitious by nature, the Shroud
essentially takes on that perforce role. Since religious beliefs
can't be disproved the faithful continue to flock to view the
Shroud, believing it to be a powerful symbol of Christianity.
And still after several hundred years the Shroud fulfills its
role, bringing in the parishioners remarkably well and making it
one of the best investments the Church ever made.
How many times has the wheel been
reinvented in history? It's increasingly apparent that our
assumptions on ancient technological abilities are often severe
under-estimations. Since the Shroud is such a polished product
the medieval photographic scientist contracted to produce the
relic must have spent years honing his technique. He (or she)
could easily have carried their useful technology into
diversified and socially enriching directions. Instead the
Church kept photographic technology a guarded secret and
destroyed the evidence to maintain the religious significance of
the Shroud. At least 500 years before the photographic process
was established a perfect example already existed!
Thanks to the Church, whose idea of
social progression was increasing ignorance, superstition and
religiosity, we had to wait 500 extra years to get the
technology of the photograph. Instead of crude drawings or
portrait paintings we could have actual photographs of famous
people like William Shakespeare, Gutenberg, Newton, and more.
But we never will because of that judgment choice to keep
photographic science a Church secret and instead use it to boost
attendance by manufacturing a hoax. It's such a fantastic
illumination of how far the medieval Church would go to maintain
converts and ruin opponents, the mind control of the heretic
label and the sheer evil of the entire theocratic system. I wish
I could write a book on it because the topic deserves it, and then some,
but fortunately many useful books and articles have already been written.
NEWS
REFERENCES
-
The Shroud, National Geographic Magazine, June 1980
-
Encyclopedia Britannica: camera
obscura
|
