tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post3535412840484553683..comments2024-03-14T08:08:39.968+08:00Comments on The Shroud of Turin: "The Shroud of Turin as the Burial Cloth of Jesus - Answers for Critics," Shroud of Turin News, September 2016 Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-4877078755700716512016-10-21T22:45:43.889+08:002016-10-21T22:45:43.889+08:00Kyle
>Several of the images in this article do...Kyle<br /><br />>Several of the images in this article do not load for me. For example: "The negative plate of one of Secondo Pia's photographs of the Shroud in 1898 in Turin Cathedral". <br /><br />I have added more links to:<br /><br />"In fact it was <a href="https://www.shroud.com/history.htm#1898" rel="nofollow">just before the end of the 19th century, in 1898</a>, that Turin amateur photographer <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondo_Pia" rel="nofollow">Secondo Pia (1855–1941)</a> took the first <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondo_Pia#The_famed_photograph" rel="nofollow">photographs of the Shroud and discovered that the negative on his photographic plate was a photographic positive</a>, which meant that the <a href="http://goo.gl/SpJeoU" rel="nofollow">Shroud image was a photographic negative</a>!<br /><br />>Most of them show up fine though. Is there any difference in how they are hosted, etc.?<br /><br />Inevitably links to different websites will have varying degrees of responsiveness. But all the links that I have posted worked for me at the time of posting. <br /><br />However, I cannot guarantee that they will work for others. Also, a links on an older post may no longer work. When I discover that has happened, I re-do the link to an equivalent one.<br /><br />If anyone does find a link on one of my posts that does not work, after waiting a day to see if it is just a temporary problem, I would appreciate being sent a comment under the post where the failed link is, and I will repair it.<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />---------------------------------<br />"<a href="https://goo.gl/8YHu6i" rel="nofollow">What are the Differences Between Message Boards and Weblogs?</a> Posted by: leelefever on August 23, 2004... <i>Responses</i> Weblogs [blogs] and Message Boards [discussion groups] both allow for responses from the community- new topics can be responded-to by others. Weblog topics have comments and message board topics have replies. This subtle difference in syntax reveals a difference in the roles. The word <i>comment for weblogs implies that the author does not need further participation to reach a goal</i> - comment if <i>you</i> want. Reply, on the other hand, implies that participation is explicitly requested by the poster. A discussion is not a discussion without a reply." (my emphasis)Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-1252155388812342542016-10-21T21:46:37.795+08:002016-10-21T21:46:37.795+08:00Several of the images in this article do not load ...Several of the images in this article do not load for me. For example: "The negative plate of one of Secondo Pia's photographs of the Shroud in 1898 in Turin Cathedral". Most of them show up fine though. Is there any difference in how they are hosted, etc.?Kylenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-13596331385546255142016-10-21T07:24:54.906+08:002016-10-21T07:24:54.906+08:00Steve
>The digitally processed image of the fa...Steve<br /><br />>The digitally processed image of the face on the Shroud above, is in my opinion, unrivaled. Can you tell me where I can view the entire Shroud image? I have tried to find it, but only the face seems to be available.<br /><br />Sorry, but I am not aware that the entire Shroud is available as digitally processed.<br /><br />The description of the <a href="https://goo.gl/tMbl9b" rel="nofollow">photo on Wikimedia Commons</a> says that only the face is available:<br /> <br />"English: The processed image at the right is the product of the application of digital filters. Digital filters are mathematical functions that do not add any information to the image, but transform it in such a way that information already present in it becomes more visible or easier to appreciate by the naked eye. The processed image was produced by inverting the brightness of the pixels in the positive image but without inverting their hue, and then by increasing both the brightness contrast and the hue saturation. Finally noise and so-called “salt and pepper” filters automatically removed the noisy information from the original image which hinders the appreciation of the actual face. To my knowledge the resulting image is the best available and indeed the only one that reveals the color information hidden in the original. Source of the positive image at the left <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shroud_of_Turin_001.jpg" rel="nofollow">https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shroud_of_Turin_001.jpg</a><br />Date 31 May 2014, 15:54:27<br />Source Own work<br />Author <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dianelos" rel="nofollow">Dianelos Georgoudis</a>"<br /><br />If anyone does know otherwise, could they post a link to it in a comment below?<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />---------------------------------<br />Reader, if you like this my <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.au/" rel="nofollow">The Shroud of Turin </a> blog, and you have a website, could you please consider adding a hyperlink to my blog on it? This would help increase its <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank" rel="nofollow">Google PageRank</a> number and so enable those who are Google searching on "Shroud of Turin" to more readily discover my blog. Thanks.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-38043550001302656062016-10-21T02:49:57.374+08:002016-10-21T02:49:57.374+08:00The digitally processed image of the face on the S...The digitally processed image of the face on the Shroud above, is in my opinion, unrivaled. Can you tell me where I can view the entire Shroud image? I have tried to find it, but only the face seems to be available.Ivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08073646543319151044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-63797839288845303942016-10-19T07:18:54.966+08:002016-10-19T07:18:54.966+08:00I wrote above:
>It is not enough for a Shroud ...I wrote above:<br /><br />>It is not enough for a Shroud sceptic to raise ONE objection, and on the basis of that declare that the Shroud is not authentic, when there are HUNDREDS, if not THOUSANDS, of items of evidence which point to the Shroud being authentic.<br /><br />I received an anonymous comment questioning my "THOUSANDS" above which I would have published except that it contained a personal attack on me.<br /><br />On reconsideration I agree that "THOUSANDS, of items of evidence which point to the Shroud being authentic" is probably an exaggeration and even "HUNDREDS" may be.<br /><br />Blogger does not allow me to edit my comments, only delete them, but if I could edit that paragraph it would now read:<br /><br />"It is not enough for a Shroud sceptic to raise ONE objection, and on the basis of that declare that the Shroud is not authentic, when there are a GREAT MANY items of evidence which point to the Shroud being authentic."<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />----------------------------------<br />"By way of guidance as to what I mean by `offensive' and `sub-standard,' I regard comments to my blog as analogous to letters to the Editor of a newspaper. If the Editor of a newspaper would not publish a comment because it is `offensive' and/or `sub-standard' then neither will I. It does not mean that if I disagree with a comment I won't publish it. I have published anti-authenticist comments and other comments that I disagreed with, and I have deleted `offensive' and/or `sub-standard' comments that are pro-authenticist. `Sub-standard' includes attempting to use my blog as a platform to publish a block of text of the commenter's own views, and also bare links to other sites with little or no actual comments. By `off-topic' I mean if a comment has little or nothing to do with the topic(s) in the post it is under (except for the latest post-see above)." [<a href="http://goo.gl/smuIaD" rel="nofollow">05Jan16</a>]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-73698799944421700212016-10-18T08:24:29.871+08:002016-10-18T08:24:29.871+08:00continued]
>The fact that there is blood on th...continued]<br /><br />>The fact that there is blood on the shroud indicates, to me, that the person who created the shroud put blood on it in order to be sure that there was no mistake as to who it was placed over. <br /><br />See my "<a href="https://goo.gl/ErnyVr" rel="nofollow">Problems of the Forgery Theory</a>" for the IMMENSE problems of a "person who created the shroud."<br /><br />For starters, there is no image under the blood, so the blood was on the Shroud before the image:<br /><br />"The image on the Shroud reveals that the blood, image went on the cloth before the body image, for there was no yellow fiber image under the blood. If the image were forged by an artist, how could he apply the blood image first, then go back to put on the body image, and finally have the wounds and blood patterns match?" (Guerrera, V., 2001, "<a href="https://goo.gl/1gizpa" rel="nofollow">The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity</a>," TAN: Rockford IL, p.71). <br /><br />So your "the person who created the shroud put blood on it" would have had to do that FIRST and THEN add the image around the blood, in NEGATIVE, without paint, pigment or dye, because there is none of the latter on the Shroud which constitutes its image. <br /><br />>By not considering the fact that in reality the blood would probably have dried by the time the shroud was placed over Jesus's body, <br /><br />No. See above.<br /><br />>the person who made the shroud inadvertently left evidence that it is not authentic.<br /><br />No. See above on "the person who made the shroud."<br /><br />Since <a href="http://goo.gl/SpJeoU" rel="nofollow">the evidence is <i>overwhelming</i> that the Turin Shroud is authentic</a>, your <i>unsubstantiated</i> and indeed <i>against the evidence</i> assumptions are WRONG!<br /><br />It is not enough for a Shroud sceptic to raise ONE objection, and on the basis of that declare that the Shroud is not authentic, when there are HUNDREDS, if not THOUSANDS, of items of evidence which point to the Shroud being authentic. <br /><br />As I have previously pointed out [<a href="https://goo.gl/iy48Gy" rel="nofollow">26Oct14</a>, <a href="https://goo.gl/O5es01" rel="nofollow">17Apr15</a>, etc]:<br /><br />What Shroud anti-authenticists need to do is propose a <i>comprehensive</i> and <i>internally coherent</i> Shroud anti-authenticist general theory that plausibly:<br /><br />1) <i>Positively</i> accounts for ALL the major features of the Shroud, including its photographic negativity, three-dimensionality, extreme superficiality, etc, with technology which was in use before the 1350s (when the Shroud <a href="https://www.shroud.com/history.htm#1355" rel="nofollow">first appeared in undisputed history</a>). Such an account should include a reproduction of the entire, full-length, double sided, Shroud, which has ALL its major features, using only pre-1350s technology. <br /><br />And 2) <i>negatively</i> explains away ALL the historical, archaeological and artistic evidence for the Shroud having been in existence from the 14th century, all the way back to the 1st century. <br /><br />No such comprehensive and coherent Shroud anti-authenticity general theory exists (to put it mildly), which indicates that if anti-authenticists had attempted to propose one, they quietly gave up, because they found the IMMENSE difficulties of such a theory!<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-62078305172463542162016-10-18T01:20:43.714+08:002016-10-18T01:20:43.714+08:00I have copied this comment from under "`Phil ...I have copied this comment from under "<a href="https://goo.gl/B8JZIm" rel="nofollow">`Phil Dayvault Presents Major New Evidence from Early Christianity": <i>Shroud of Turin News</i> - February 2016</a>," where it is off-topic to here under my "latest post" where the off-topic rule does not apply (see my policies at the end of my latest comment above).<br /><br />>Otto M. Wildensteiner<br />><br />>I have an observation that casts doubt on the authenticity of the shroud. Jesus died around 3 PM according to the Bible, and his body was taken down from the cross shortly before sundown according to Jewish law and/or custom. Let's assume that he died at 3:30 PM, and was taken down from the cross at 5:30 PM. That means that his body was hanging from the cross for 2 hours. <br /><br />Agreed.<br /><br />>Jerusalem is in a desert, with very dry air; if there were a breeze this would have increased the rate of drying of the blood. <br /><br />Jerusalem is also at an altitude of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem" rel="nofollow">754 m (2,474 ft) above sea level</a>.<br /><br />And according to <a href="https://goo.gl/O92gC2" rel="nofollow">this graph</a>, the average humidity of Jerusalem in April (the <a href="http://www.nowoezone.com/NTC24.htm" rel="nofollow">month in which Jesus died</a>) is about 50%.<br /><br />>Regardless of what the weather might have been on that exact day, <br /><br />That is a SELF-REFUTING statement. The weather could have been VERY HUMID and therefore NOT dry on the day that Jesus was crucified. <br /><br />>it seems to me that all the blood on his body would have been dry when the shroud was placed over him <br /><br />No. See above.<br /><br />>and that there would have been no transfer of blood to the shroud. <br /><br />No. See above and below.<br /><br />>Further, the shroud would have been lightly placed on his body, which further militates against blood transfer to the shroud. <br /><br />Jesus was probably laid on the Shroud when He was taken down from the cross and then He would have been carried on a `stretcher' to the tomb. <br /><br />There is no reason to think the Shroud would have been would have been placed lightly over Jesus' body. The evidence of the blood on the feet end is that the Shroud was wrapped over His body back and front and then overlapping at His feet. That implies the Shroud wrapped Jesus' body moderately tightly. <br /><br />There would have been transfer of the blood on and IN Jesus' body to the Shroud, both when His body was laid on the Shroud and when Jesus' body was transported on the Shroud to the tomb with the Shroud wrapped moderately tightly over His body.<br /><br />[To be continued tomorrow.]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-71763924100974197952016-10-15T19:17:55.265+08:002016-10-15T19:17:55.265+08:00Anonymous
>The illustration labelled "The...Anonymous<br /><br />>The illustration labelled "The negative plate of one of Secondo Pia's photographs of the Shroud" is not a negative. It is a positive. It shows the Shroud, and the marble altar, as they appeared in real life.<br /><br />Thanks. I misread Moretto's caption and misinterpreted the photograph.<br /><br />I have now replaced the sepia positive of Pia's photograph with Moretto's copy of Pia's negative which is on the same page.<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />----------------------------------<br />MY POLICIES. Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my latest post can be on any Shroud-related topic. To avoid time-wasting debate I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-59551817032356264422016-10-14T06:12:07.311+08:002016-10-14T06:12:07.311+08:00Hi Stephen,
The illustration labelled "The ne...Hi Stephen,<br />The illustration labelled "The negative plate of one of Secondo Pia's photographs of the Shroud" is not a negative. It is a positive. It shows the Shroud, and the marble altar, as they appeared in real life.<br />Best wishes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com