Christian Icons thread - Part I. The Shroud of Turin.

[cgannon64]

I heard an only moderately wild theory that the Shroud of Turin dates to the 13th century or so because it was in a fire, and that messes with carbon dating. I have no idea how reasonable that theory is, but it seems at least slightly reasonable.

Nevertheless, as other people have said, how it was made is still a huge mystery - and a very interesting one.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Once, if, scientists can figure out how the shroud image was made, the forgery side will gain a big advantage. Until then, it will stay a pretty even debate. I like the idea of it being real. Not because it would add credence to christianity, but because it adds real mystery and wonder to a world increasingly dominated by science.

http://www.shroudstory.com/

For those who like chemistry, this link (below) on the top left of the above link is a very interesting read.
The Shroud of Caiaphas -- a story of Maillard Reactions and Melanoidins

And one more great link:

http://www.shroudstory.com/art.htm

 

[MjM]

Them fingers look hugenormous.

 

[Rik Meleet]

With your wrist past your genitals, while your elbows are clearly next to your waist (with room to spare) and your arms not stretched at all ?????
QUOTE]

Are we both interpreting the shroud image the same way? From what I can see it has one wrist directly over the crotch, with the other hand on top of that. The elbows look well above the line of the waist, nearer the bottom of the rib cage, though they are angled out from the body. It's a little indistinct, but isn't the image's waist only just above the higher of the two wrists?



Slightly below, but not that far. I'm not an Orangutan .

I've marked the arms from fingertip to elbow red and then rotated them to make their length visual. One of the arms is near the knees ... You might not be an Orang Utan, the depicted figure's arm (only 1) looks like one.

I think this visual unsimilarity has to do with a flat projection of a 3D person that is not lying down flat.

 

[MrCynical]

I think the figure's knees are the darker patch in between the two lighter sections of the legs (about level with the base of the four marks vaguely resembling upside down triangles). That would make the figure's longer arm reach down to about 2/3rds of the way down the thigh. With the fingers fully extended, as you've measured on the drawing, this seems quite plausible (that's about how far my arm reaches down my leg if you include the length of the hand). There does seem a slight discrepancy in the length of the arms, but I think the fingers of the "shorter" arm are actually wrapped partly round the other wrist, so it may be slightly longer than you've drawn.

 

[Perfection]

Jesus was deformed!

 

[MobBoss]

I've marked the arms from fingertip to elbow red and then rotated them to make their length visual. One of the arms is near the knees ... You might not be an Orang Utan, the depicted figure's arm (only 1) looks like one.

I think this visual unsimilarity has to do with a flat projection of a 3D person that is not lying down flat.

How long would ones arm be if it were in turn pulled out of socket at elbow and shoulder?

 

[ironduck]

If you have done any figure drawing you will immediately see there are a number of obvious anatomically weird things going on. The eyes are way too high in the head (cut off skull syndrome), the arms are too long, the fingers are wrong, etc.

And not least, the figure is disproportionate in terms of head-to-body. An average adult human is 7 to 7½ heads tall. An idealized figure in art is typically 8 heads tall. This figure is 8 1/3 heads tall from what I can tell. I made a quick illustration:



(Why can't I put images in the thread anymore? Which link should I use on image shack?)

 

[7ronin]

How long would ones arm be if it were in turn pulled out of socket at elbow and shoulder?

Good point! Crucifixions often resulted in dislocations.

 

[Rik Meleet]

If you have done any figure drawing you will immediately see there are a number of obvious anatomically weird things going on. The eyes are way too high in the head (cut off skull syndrome), the arms are too long, the fingers are wrong, etc.

And not least, the figure is disproportionate in terms of head-to-body. An average adult human is 7 to 7½ heads tall. An idealized figure in art is typically 8 heads tall. This figure is 8 1/3 heads tall from what I can tell. I made a quick illustration:



(Why can't I put images in the thread anymore? Which link should I use on image shack?)

The "mistake" you make here is that you consider the shroud to be used flat on the topside of a human body. It obviously can't be that way. And thus the comparison with a human body can't be done one-on-one ....

 

[El_Machinae]

The eyes are way too high in the head (cut off skull syndrome), the arms are too long, the fingers are wrong, etc.

Jesus was half-God, half-man. God clearly has eyes on the top of His head, and Jesus was the result of human genes and God genes competing.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Jesus was half-God, half-man. God clearly has eyes on the top of His head, and Jesus was the result of human genes and God genes competing.

Good thing God genes aren't dominant or recessive, or Jesus would have been completely one or the other.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Jesus was half-God, half-man. God clearly has eyes on the top of His head, and Jesus was the result of human genes and God genes competing.

Don't talk nonsense in this thread. !!

Another picture of what I mean with "not one on one":

 

[El_Machinae]

Don't talk nonsense in this thread. !!

Okay. How about this?

The reason why we commonly (accidentally) draw eyes too far up the head is that we have an ancestral memory of that being the proper way people were formed in the Beginning. Adam, for example (having perfect genetics) had his eyes just as far up as Jesus does here in this picture. Over time, we've mutated to lower our eyes in our head.

MobBoss: good point about the arm being out of the socket.

Rik: I'm not too sure what you're showing in that drawing. If anything, a tight wrap around the head should lengthen the effect of the forehead on the shroud, not shorten it (since when we put the eyes in the middle, we're not factoring in the curve of the head, but looking at the fact as if it's 2D)

 

[Erik Mesoy]

E_M, I still think you're talking nonsense, but it's funny nonsense.

 

[MrCynical]

Looking at the above graph, it would seem that if the shroud was originally wrapped around the head, but then laid out flat to give the current image, it would expand the length from the top of the head to the eyes, not compress it as it is in the image.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Maybe Jesus' head was bent backwards due to crucifixional dislocations. However, it hung forwards on the cross.
All this speculation is pretty much moot, really, because what does the Shroud matter?

 

[El_Machinae]

E_M, I still think you're talking nonsense

You've read my "learning another language is evil" rant?

If anything, a tight wrap around the head should lengthen the effect of the forehead on the shroud, not shorten it

That's what I was trying to write. So, I agree! Unless the shroud was loosely placed, and the imprint was from 'straight above'.

 

[Rik Meleet]

How long would ones arm be if it were in turn pulled out of socket at elbow and shoulder?

One could certainly make it appear a lot longer. The position of the arms on the shroud would be very possible.

Looking at the above graph, it would seem that if the shroud was originally wrapped around the head, but then laid out flat to give the current image, it would expand the length from the top of the head to the eyes, not compress it as it is in the image.

It would, yes.

My pictures' only purpose is to demonstrate that the depicted length and size are not neccesarily that of the person. And that's only the shroud. I could position the shroud in such a way that it has shorter arms, the eyes seem further down and there are 2 noses depicted. If I have the freedom to position the body in any way I like, I can create more deformaties in size and location.

What does that proof ?

 

[ironduck]

The "mistake" you make here is that you consider the shroud to be used flat on the topside of a human body. It obviously can't be that way. And thus the comparison with a human body can't be done one-on-one ....

Eh, what?

Although it's supposed to be an imprint and thereby not made from 'flat', I still don't see how that should make the head too small relative to the body - if anything it would seem to me that the head would be bigger on the imprint relative to the body in comparison. But it's not, quite the contrary.

And even if we ignore the head to body ratio the other problems are still completely off (and no, the arms being out of their socket would not increase their length by that much judging from the picture, although it's hard to see for sure since it's muddled).