The Holy Shroud
Posted on 07/04/2012 2:07:42 PM PDT by NYer
The Holy Shroud
The results of a recent study - completed by Italian scientist, Giuseppe Baldacchini - on the theory of annihilation, are said to prove the authenticity of the Shroud according to the current laws of physics
Marco Tosatti
Rome
Giuseppe Baldacchini is a physician who has worked for Italian research centre ENEA for a number of years. He is also a passionate scholar of that mysterious object which is the Holy Shroud of Turin and in recent days he has published a book about his findings, which readers can access by clicking on the following link. Of particular interest is a fascinating theory he has come up with to try to respond to a series of questions about how the image on the Shroud was formed and how the body which lay wrapped inside the winding sheet could have disappeared. Baldacchini presents two theories: one, that the Shroud is a medieval fake which is useful in worship rituals and/or religious propaganda in the Catholic Church, like many other relics. And two, that it is the genuine article and really did contain Jesus Christ’s body, making it a witness of his Resurrection.
“The Shroud is an old linen sheet, measuring 4,40x1, 10 sq m, which contains a number of marks including a front and back image of a body (IC) and organic and inorganic liquid stains. Over the past decades it was discovered that the IC is neither a drawing nor a picture created with known techniques. Indeed, some reddish stains were caused by human blood (Antonacci, 2000), (Wilson, 2010). Naturally we cannot yet exclude a fake so let us suppose that the Shroud is a medieval fake created by a brilliant forger who never existed on Earth and remains unknown today (Baldacchini, 2011). The supposed author/authors must have been familiar with some kind of technology or possessed certain information before these were even invented or published.” Baldacchini lists eleven crucial scientific elements which lead him to the conclusion that the Shroud is not a fake. These are too many to list here so we ask you to refer to the original text.
The scholar recalls that “The Shroud contains no traces of putrescent liquids or gases (these marks start to appear about 40 hours after the person’s death, so the body had disappeared from the shroud before then, but not too long before that judging by the blood stains which would have needed some time to form as a result of the liquefaction of the clotted blood, the process of haemolysis),” and that “The body was not removed from the Shroud manually (there are no signs of dragging that correspond with the blood stains).”
So how did the body disappear? Baldacchini’s response is this: “The only phenomenon in Physics that can lead to the complete disappearance of mass, producing an equivalent energy is the process known as matter-antimatter annihilation (AMA). Today, this can only be reproduced on a subatomic level in elementary particle laboratories but was a dominant occurrence straight after the Big Bang. That is, in the first instants of our universe’s existence.” The “annihilation theory” also satisfies the criteria of previous theories: “Indeed, only a small portion of the energy from the dead matter is released, while the body is completely annihilated and reappears almost exactly as it was before even outside the Shroud.” Previous theories are based on radiant energy (MEB) and the idea of the body being mechanically transparent (REB). These were completed by the “Consistent historical method” (CHM) theory. Said theories were all conceived in order to explain the body’s disappearance as it was not mechanically removed from the winding sheet. Therefore, Jesus Christ’s body becomes transparent for the Shroud, which satisfies the MTB theory, whilst releasing a limited amount of radiant energy, a requirement of the REB theory, without the problems presented by the HCM theory.”
Concluding his study, the physician states that: “The AMA theory tells us nothing, except that the body dematerialised inside the Shroud and instantly materialised again somewhere else, either dead or alive. This makes no difference to the laws of Physics as this way they do not contradict the evangelical texts which describe it as resurrected and therefore alive.” They also tally with the chemical and physical characteristics of the Holy Shroud. “I pushed the boundaries of current scientific knowledge but tried to remain within the laws of physics we are familiar with today, mainly the preservation of energy and the non preservation of some parameters that are essential in the elementary processes which form the basis of our universe’s existence,” the scholar concluded.
He waits for you there.
Would you rather spend your Sundays hearing a rock concert punctuated by a man ranting about a Bible he doesn't understand, or would you rather have an encounter with the True and Living God who tabernacles among men to this day?
Your choice ... rock concert, or Jesus? A mess of red pottage, or the inheritance of the sons and daughters.
Choose wisely.
RummyChick, I have seen the translations of the letters. But the point in reference to the Mannopello veil is moot as under a microscopic examination, pigments are easily seen. It is a painting. That proves it is NOT a miraculous image of Christ. There is a large amount of white pigment in the eyes and teeth areas... and other pigments, of types used in medieval paintings, in the image areas. Although you can superimpose IMAGES of the Shroud and the Mannopello veil over one another, they have to be resized to make them fit. One to one images DO NOT fit. The faces are not the same, although, a Catholic nun claims they are. Enough said.
No you don't and most Catholic agree with that sentiment...You have a cracker...
Would you rather spend your Sundays hearing a rock concert punctuated by a man ranting about a Bible he doesn't understand, or would you rather have an encounter with the True and Living God who tabernacles among men to this day?
A Christian has the 'real presence inside of himself, while he also is in the risen Savior...24/7...
There's no need to 'go somewhere' to locate Jesus...
Eating that cracker will have no more, no less an effect on your body or soul than eating a New York bagel...And again, most in your religion know that...Why try to convince me when most Catholics don't believe you...
“But the point in reference to the Mannopello veil is moot as under a microscopic examination, pigments are easily seen. It is a painting. That proves it is NOT a miraculous image of Christ. “
No it doesn’t. What it proves is that pigment has been applied sometime over the hundreds of years of existence as scholars have pointed out- it is quite possible that it has been retouched. The pigments are only in certain areas. the whole thing is not pigments.
It is quite possible that the Church commissioned the work. There is also another possibility.
As for the size - we are talking about a miracle. If it is a true miracle (of which I have no opinion ) I wouldn’t expect it to match up to size.
But it matches enough with the Shroud that you can’t possibly explain how Raphael would have been able to match it so closely. Either they both are faked by the same person or people who were in on it.. or someone copied the shroud. How could they do it in the 1500s????
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/jaworski.pdf
You say you have seen translated letters. Who has written about them? Surely in this day and age -with so many people writing about Raphael and Durer ..someone would have written about them.
7 months ago you told me you were CERTAIN that Raphael had sent a transparent painting to Durer. Yet, there is NOTHING that I can find to back this up. He sent some drawings- that some think were the work of Romano.
I really don’t have an opinion as to the Veil. Even if Raphael was experimenting on the method - the method doesn’t look like the Veil as seen by Durer’s work still in existence. It stands to reason that Raphael might experiment with the technique. And even if Raphael tried his hand on it - I HIGHLY doubt he sent it to Durer as you claimed.
This was very expensive cloth. The only thing anyone knows of him sending to Durer doesn’t include a transparent painting on very very expensive cloth
Maybe Guilo Romano did a self portrait. He had the original Durer. Romano , if that is him depicted in the Expulsion fresco as Varsari claims - looks like the man depicted in the Veil.
But what is really fascinating is reading the way you have twisted the information.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1693902/posts
Back then, you claimed the Vasari wrote that Raphael sent back a transparent painting. He wrote no such thing.
This conclusion:
“Raphael, using the same technique and same Byssus cloth, painted his OWN portrait and sent it to Dürer.”
IS YOURS...not the language of Vasari who is really the only person to go to for information on this.
I can find NOTHING where Varsari claims that Raphael sent a transparent painting to Durer.
I think you are using conjecture - which does not prove that the Veil is fake- nor does the fact that pigments were found in the eyes.
It may be a fake. But one that is not proven.
I am still waiting on someone to explain why the lock of hair is not the same on both sides.
RummyChick, I think you do have an opinion on the Mannopello veil. I spent almost two weeks researching that "relic" several years ago and I am not going to revisit that research to find those letters which were published in a book in the 1930's and the letters were between Dürer and Raphael, no others, discussing painting on diaphanous cloths including Cambric and Byssus AND the fact they were exchanging self portraits done with that technique.
As for the size - we are talking about a miracle. If it is a true miracle (of which I have no opinion ) I wouldn’t expect it to match up to size.
But it matches enough with the Shroud that you can’t possibly explain how Raphael would have been able to match it so closely. Either they both are faked by the same person or people who were in on it.. or someone copied the shroud. How could they do it in the 1500s????
They DON'T match. That's the point. The image on the Shroud has a full mustache and a full forked beard, the Mannopello Veronica has a trace of a mustache and a wispy beard. If we accept the legend of the Veronica, the two images would have been created within three days of each other, ergo, no time to grow more facial hair. As to the differing sizes, I follow logic and science. Once you invoke miracles and claim that can explain away every variance and difference that disproves your thesis, we can not have a rational discussion. You could claim the pink fairies did it by osmosis with a miracle, and stand on that base, regardless of any fact I could produce, and nothing could disprove it!
I am interested in the Shroud of Turin and the well founded science and scholarship surrounding it, not the poor speculation that has been put forward about something that DOES have proof that it is a work of a known artist.. . and respected scientists have looked at photomicrographs taken of it and found obvious pigments in all areas of the image, regardless of your claims that it has been "retouched."
Not sure what you’re getting at, but it sure sounds disrespectful to Christ. So I’ll just let your sage remark stand as it flowed from your heart.
“RummyChick, I think you do have an opinion on the Mannopello veil. I spent almost two weeks researching that “relic” several years ago and I am not going to revisit that research to find those letters which were published in a book in the 1930’s and the letters were between Dürer and Raphael, no others, discussing painting on diaphanous cloths including Cambric and Byssus AND the fact they were exchanging self portraits done with that technique. “
You are wrong about me having an opinion. I am not a very religious person. I am just looking at FACTS to determine possibilities.
You know what comes back when you do a google search about these letters that you claim exist?
YOUR POSTS. There is NOTHING that I can find that backs up this claim. In your post in 2006 you claim
“Raphael, using the same technique and same Byssus cloth, painted his OWN portrait and sent it to Dürer.”
And you use this paragraph to bolster your statement:
“By these and other works the fame of Raphael spread to France and Flanders. Albert Dürer, a remarkable German painter and author of some fine copper engravings, paid him the tribute of his homage and sent him his own portrait, painted in water-colours, on byssus, so fine that it was transparent, without the use of white paint, the white material forming the lights of the picture This appeared marvellous to Raphael, who sent back many drawings of his own which were greatly valued by Albert...”
Giorgio Vasari
He sent drawings. They have notations on them by Durer. NO WHERE..I MEAN NO WHERE ..do I see any claim by Vasari that Raphael sent a transaparent painting to Durer.
I don’t believe it happened. Given what I have read, he would not have sent something like that to Durer. It would have been a very expensive painting to do. He sent Durer drawings from his stock.
I am dubious of your claims because you can’t back them up. When you flat out stated that Raphael sent the Mannopello piece to Durer you quoted from Vasari- WHO SAID NOTHING TO BACK YOU UP.
You cite Roberto Falcinelli work - but he doesn’t even realize that the person in the Expulsion fresco is not Durer- it’s his supposed “enemy” Marcantonio - according to Vasari. It is also NOT Raphael in that painting - according to Vasari.
Falcinelli’s working theory is that it is the veil is Durer’s painting. He then goes on to say that he wonders if Vasari got it wrong. But there is not ANY PROOF that Raphael sent a TRANSPARENT painting to Durer.
The only proof is something you claim you have seen..that no one else talks about.
Not sure what your agenda is..but this I know...Vasari did not say ANYTHING that would indicate that Raphael had made such a painting.
As I have repeatedly said, the Veil could very well be some kind of painting. It does NOT resemble any of Durer’s transparent paintings that are in existance today.
And I still see NO mention of these letters you claim you have seen. I find it VERY ODD that no historian brings them up and no historian other than someone in 1930 claims that Raphael sent a transparent painting to Durer.
I want to see a reference to those letters somewhere other than you.
And I can’t find it.
They may exist. It just seems odd that something of this historical consequence is buried because you are the only one that remembers the 1930’s book.
And NO ONE can explain why the hair lock on the forehead is different on the back from the front. This is impossible on a transparent painting of this nature.
One more thing..I see repeated references to Raphael being impressed with the work of Durer and wanting to try it for himself.
EXCEPT..the references are talking about Durer’s engraving and Raphael had his buddy Marcantonio set about honing the craft of ENGRAVING.
Who was it who said, “I believe, so that I may know”?
Here is something else, there is a book out that translates letters and such from Durer.
NOWHERE is there a reference to Durer receiving a transparent painting from Raphael. It does , however, bring up something that happened after Raphael’s death.
He sent some engravings via Thomas who then sent them by someone else and that person was suppose to send some of Raphael’s things. The author of the book notates that it is probably some engravings.
HIGHLY unlikely it would have been a valuable self-portrait of Raphael - when Durer didn’t get even get back his own painting.
The life of Albrecht Dürer of Nürnberg: with a translation of his letters
But let’s say it was a self portrait of Raphael. It would have happened AFTER HIS DEATH...not part of some exchange in letters between the two.
No, most Catholics don't have that sentiment. I have rarely heard any Catholic express that he/she thinks of the Holy Eucharist as being just symbolic. (and I know a ton of Catholics) I think you are just making this up.
I have no agenda except to follow the science and not to resort to calling on "miracles" to explain away uncomfortable facts that don't agree with a favorite thesis.
As for the locks of hair not matching, that is not difficult to achieve. . . the hair is one area where the pigment is thicker than the facial tones and it was applied on both sides. The locks have a greater thickness than other areas of the image, and one side's lock is used as a substrate for the other's application. Under magnification, the other side's hair can be seen where they don't quite match. There are other areas that don't quite "register accurately as well, in the eyes and teeth, both areas with thick pigments that are opaque because of the heavy application of the pigment necessary for the white to stand out. These mis-registrations, in my opinion, are evidence of artifice, not miraculous creation.
As far as I know, the Mannopello Veronica has not been removed from its reliquary and all examination has been done through the poorly blown glass. The veil itself has never been straightened, measured, checked for thickness at various locations on the cloth, etc., and all examinations have been done in situ, distortions and all. This is not a way to do good science.
In 2010 the conclusion by Jaworski was that at this point Fanti’s information indicates that info points to it being linen but that further analysis is needed.
But let me remind you again, that Fanti thinks that 3d imaging shows the Veil and the Shroud to show the same tortured body. Fanti also thinks that the lock of hair has yet to be explained. In addition, I have seen nothing that states there is pigment on that lock of hair.
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/jaworski.pdf
So no one researching the Veil in the modern age knows about these letters????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Durer talks about the exchange in his journal/letters. NOTHING about receiving a transparent painting from Raphael.
So the only record is some book from the 1930s that no other researcher knows about?????? Well sheesh, maybe you should notify them of this astounding discovery because it might help them.
Here you go. It should only take you a few minutes to find the name of that book.
I really don't care what Fanti thinks. The 3-D image (sic) on the Shroud is ONLY a quasi 3D image. It is well understood to be actually a terrain mapping from the quasi 3-D data on the Shroud. The attempt to get a 3-D image produced from the Mannopello image bears all the hall marks of every attempt to get a 3-D image from a painting, I.E., dark objects raised, light not raised, the nose is flat, dark hair is raised, the eyes invert, there are shadows that are LIGHT related (artifice) that show up as quasi 3D bumps, the entire face cups inward, etc. ALL of these are the signature signs of a painted portrait under digitizer conversion to 3-D. Fanti's amazement at the changes in the eyes, wisps, and mouth as the digitizer is stepped through increasing offsets demonstrates his lack of understanding of what is being done to the image as one would get the same results with any painted portrait. . . Variations in the strength and direction of the depth effect. This is exactly what is seen when Fanti and others attempted to get a 3-D image from the Veil. Garbage data. Useless. To those of us who know what we are looking at, it is NOT a useful image for comparison, or for identifications with the Shroud image at all. Fanti's claim is wishful thinking. He sees what he wants to see. It is not science.
How could the living Christ on the Via Dolorosa be the same as the dead Christ in the tomb? Where is the crown of thorns in this image? It was placed on his head BEFORE he left to carry the cross to Golgotha, yet those wounds are missing but present on the Shroud.
When did he grow the mustache and beard that are wispy and hard to see in the Mannopello image but fully developed and robust on the Shroud?
Linen? Linen does not lend itself well to making diaphanous cloth. The fabric experts that I know of who have looked at the Mannopello veil have been leaning toward Cambric cotton. However, until it is removed from its reliquary and the cells of the fibers examined under a microscope, it will be undetermined.
The Vatcan's Veronica is Linen, and it is not diaphanous... It is opaque.
Well, that's what you get for thinkin'...You notice that you are the only one who objected...
Obviously you are too lazy to do the research like some of us have...But keep on thinkin'...It may work out for ya some day...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.