Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]
This is part #17, "The man on the Shroud: Non-directional," of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!" See the Main index for more information about this series.
[Main index #1] [Previous: No style. #16] [Next: Superficial #18]
- The man on the Shroud #8
- Non-directional #17
Introduction. The image of the man on the Shroud is non-directional[2].
[Above (enlarge): Extract of the Shroud man's face on Shroud Scope at maximum enlargement[3]. As can be seen, even at extreme close range, "every thread is visible, and no trace of solid extraneous colouring matter can be detected even by microscopic examination"[4]. Hence there are no brush marks (see below) and therefore the image has no directionality[5]. The same is true of any other part of the image as readers can confirm for themselves using Shroud Scope.]
Directionality is up and down, or side to side[6], linear movement[7]. There is no such directionality on the shroud image[8], with the exception of the scourge marks which were delivered by a flagrum wielded from one side and then the other[9]. Other than that, the Shroud image's only directionality is vertical (see below)[10], that is vertically collimated, going straight up and down from the body[11].
Brush strokes There are no signs of brush strokes[12], finger strokes, or any other methods of artificial application[13]; nor any directional pattern that there would have been if the Shroud image had been produced by a human hand[14].
Computer analysis. In 1976, STURP members Don Lynn and
[Right (enlarge)[15]: The computer TV screen showing that the Shroud image's microdensit-ometer data was random and therefore not directional[16]. The white cross in the centre of the screen represents the warp and weft of the weave[17].]
Jean Lorre (a man), working at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, used a micro-densitometer to scan black and white photos of the Shroud[18]. When the resultant grey scale information was fed into a computer and then progressively removed at each level of shade intensity, the pixels disappeared randomly, showing there is no evidence of a directional pattern, and therefore no evidence for brush marks as would be expected for a painting[19]. Further computer analysis by the late Prof. Giovanni Tamburelli (1923-90) in 1981 confirmed this[20]. In fact the only directional feature found on the Shroud image was in the weave of the cloth[21].Painting has direction One cannot apply paint without directionality[22]. All paintings and drawings have directionality[23] as an artist moves his/her brush, pen or pencil from one side to another[24]. Even with Pointillism, the "technique of painting in which small, distinct dots of color are applied in patterns to form an image"[25], each dot betrays a slight directional movement[26]. The lack of directionality of the Shroud image is further evidence that the Shroud is not a painting[27].
Radiation That there is no directionality in the image indicates that the image must have been formed by a release of radiation[28]. Radiation would not cause any any directionality across the width and length of the image[29].
Vertical That the Shroud image is vertical (see above) is consistent with STURP's John Jackson's "Cloth Collapse Theory"[30].
Resurrection of Jesus That the Shroud image is consistent with having been caused by some form of radiation through space and was vertically directional is evidence for it having been the result of the resurrection of Jesus:
"The evidence ... clearly indicates that radiation caused the body images on the Shroud. This radiation came from the length and width of a real human corpse, including the internal parts of his body. Radiation does not naturally come from a dead body, and if we were to start a fire under a corpse or make it radiate in some way, we would not only create additional problems with the body, blood, and cloth, we still couldn't come close to making this kind of unique image on a cloth. Moreover, the radiation was vertically directional and encoded through space. Radiation coming from a corpse in such an unprecedented and unique manner is evidence of and consistent with the resurrection. Only a cloth collapsing through a wounded body giving off uniform radiant energy can explain the Shroud's more than twenty body image features, along with the more than one hundred blood marks ... this method not only can encode the mutually inconsistent primary body image features, but also the distracting and misregistered blood marks and body image features caused by the cloth's collapsing motion. Furthermore, this method not only explains how each of the complete and coagulated blood marks that formed naturally on a human got embedded into the cloth, but also how they separated from the body, leaving the original smooth surfaces between the wounds and the skin unbroken and intact on the cloth. Obviously the body has left the cloth. Obviously, each of the numerous wounds once had intimate contact with the cloth. However the cloth could not have been removed from the body by any human means without breaking or smearing many, if not all, these blood marks. Since there are no decomposition stains of any kind on the cloth, this body had to have left it in a unique manner within two to three days. The completely embedded blood marks in Jesus' burial shroud are also consistent with the historical descriptions of Jesus' appearance following his resurrection ... These facts, along with the image-encoding event and the body exiting the cloth within two to three days of death, are all consistent with and indicative of the resurrection."[31].
Problem for the forgery theory That the Shroud image is non-directional is yet another problem (see previous three: #14, #15 & #16) for the forgery theory. In particular, the lack of brush strokes or any directional pattern rules out any production by the hand of an artist[32]. Not only forgery by painting is ruled out (see above); also is Joe Nickell's powder rubbed on a cloth over a bas relief method[33], because (amongst its many problems) the application of powder is directional[34]. And as we saw in 07Aug16, directionality of sunlight is a fatal problem of Prof. Nicholas Allen's medieval photograph forgery theory[35]. Indeed all naturalistic attempts to account for non-directional nature of the Shroud image have failed[36]!
Continued in part #18 of this series.
Notes
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this post. [return]
2. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, p.108; Cruz, J.C., 1984, "Relics: The Shroud of Turin, the True Cross, the Blood of Januarius. ..: History, Mysticism, and the Catholic Church," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.53; Habermas G.R., "Discussion: Antony G. N. Flew, Gary R. Habermas, Terry L. Miethe, and W. David Beck," in Habermas G.R., Flew A.G.N. & Miethe T.L., ed., 1987, "Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?: The Resurrection Debate," Harper & Row: San Francisco CA, p.119; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.37; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.137. [return]
3. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
4. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.14 [return]
5. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.16. [return]
6. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.122. [return]
7. Habermas, 1987, p.120; Antonacci, 2000, p.38. [return]
8. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.150; Habermas, 1987, p.120. [return]
9. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.232. [return]
10. Wilson, 1979, p.234; Antonacci, 2000, p.234. [return]
11. Whanger, A.D., 1998, "Radiation in the Formation of the Shroud Image - The Evidence," in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, pp.184-189, 188; Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, p.118; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.35, 130. [return]
12. Heller, 1983, p.150; Drews, 1984, p.16; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.4,156,176; de Wesselow, 2012, p.136. [return]
13. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.106. [return]
14. Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.196; Morgan, R.H., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, p.134; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.66; Cruz, 1984, p.53. [return]
15. Antonacci, M., 2016, "Test The Shroud: At the Atomic and Molecular Levels," Forefront Publishing Company: Brentwood TN, p.7. [return]
16. Antonacci, 2016, p.7. [return]
17. Ibid. [return]
18. Heller, 1983, p.137; Antonacci, 2000, p.37. [return]
19. Heller, 1983, p.137; Adler, A.D., 2000a, "The Shroud Fabric and the Body Image: Chemical and Physical Characteristics," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, pp.113-127, 116-117; Adler, 2000c, "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.11-27, 17-18. [return]
20. Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311, 288; Meacham, W., 2005, "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, pp.12-13. [return]
21. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.106; Cruz, 1984, p.53; Antonacci, 2000, p.38. [return]
22. Habermas, 1987, p.120. [return]
23. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.213. [return]
24. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, p.195. [return]
25. "Pointillism," Wikipedia, 21 October 2016. [return]
26. Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, p.26. [return]
27. Heller, 1983, p.138. [return]
28. Morgan, 1980, pp.76-77. [return]
29. Antonacci, 2000, p.212. [return]
30. Jackson, J.P., 1991, "An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain all Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, p.325-344, 330-331. [return]
31. Antonacci, 2000, pp.234-235. [return]
32. Cruz, 1984, p.53. [return]
33. Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, pp.101-102. [return]
34. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.108. [return]
35. Schwortz, B.M., 2000, "Is The Shroud of Turin a Medieval Photograph?: A Critical Examination of the Theory," Shroud.com; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.124; Zugibe, F.T., 2005, "The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry," M. Evans & Co.: New York NY, p.263. [return]
36. Habermas, G.R., 1984, "Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.158. [return]
Posted 29 October 2016. Updated 7 April 2024.
No comments:
Post a Comment