Scientists find new face on Turin shroud

CNN ^ | April 15, 2004

[shroudie]

Abstract from CNN Space and Science: MILAN, Italy (Reuters) -- Italian scientists have found a matching image of a man's face and possibly his hands on the back of the Turin shroud, believed by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, one of the researchers said on Thursday.

[shroudie]

Story is a bit short on carbon 14 part of story. See:

http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-carbon-14.htm

This is the biggest story on the Shroud since the now discredited carbon 14 tests in 1988. In my opinion it is very decisive.

[Wally_Kalbacken]

Turns out it was a guy named Wally. Never mind!

[shroudie]

Easier links:

http://shroudstory.com/faq-second-face.htm

and check out various topics, in particular chemistry and carbon 14 linked from the above.

[Psycho_Bunny]

Wow. They found Waldo.

[freebilly]

Wow. They found Waldo.

Lots of folks are hoping that's all they found....

[Swordmaker]

Shroud of Turin Pingaroonie.

If you want to be included or deleted from the Shroud of Turin Ping List, please freepmail me.

Swordmaker

[Jeff Gordon]

What do you think of the theory that the Shroud was done by Leonardo DiVinci?

[WVNan]

shroudie, I think you and I are about the only ones who have an abiding interest in the Shroud. I've read "The Resurrection of the Shroud" by Mark Antonacci, "The DNA of God" by Dr. Leoncio A. Garza-Valdes, and "The Blood and the Shroud" by Ian Wilson. Ian Wilson's book is the best in my opinion. He put all the facts together like a detective story so it is very readable. Valdes spent most of his book defending his plastic coating theory.

I believe that the Shroud is real. It's probably a good thing that the doubts remain so people will not worship it as a relic. I think it's value is in knowing that so many of the classic portraits of Jesus are a fairly good likeness. One of the most interesting things I found was His hair. He had the locks of hair on the side and the tied back pony tail just like the Orthodox Jews still wear today. Orthodox religious peoople seldom make changes in their traditions. That tells me more than a lot of the clues that the man of the Shroud was a Jew.

[Swordmaker]

Let's try this:

http://shroudstory.com/faq-second-image.htm

instead, shroudie.

[Graymatter]

Link doesn't work for me...changed "face" to "image" and it worked.

http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-second-image.htm

[shroudie]

Jeff, this continues to make the rounds. Even National Geographic once reported it (and they dusted off the tape for Holy Week). The National Geographic website is more current and reports that the carbon 14 testing was indeed flawed.

First of all, it is not a painting. That is proven. Second of all, da Vinci was born (1452-1519) nearly 100 years after the first documented appearance of the Shroud in Lirey, France in 1356. Painting of the Shroud long before Leonardo was born invalidate this theory. A variation of this story is that Leonardo da Vinci invented photography. No historical evidence suggests this is so. Furthermore, the same chemical analysis of the image that proves it is not a painting also proves that it is not a photograph.

I hope this helps.

[Swordmaker]

What do you think of the theory that the Shroud was done by Leonardo DiVinci?

Jeff, I think I can speak for shroudie... but he will also tell you that Picknett and Prince wanted to sell a book... and came up with an absurd premise.

The easiest way to debunk this is the facts that the Shroud was first displayed (by Geoffrey de Charny to the villagers of Lirey) in Lirey, France, in about 1352; Leonardo Da Vinci was first displayed (by the midwife to his mother and father) in 1454, 102 years later.

Unless Leonardo also invented time travel, then "tain't possible."

[Jeff Gordon]

The head is too big (out of proportion) to the body.

The body image on the back of body is slightly smaller than the image of the front of the body.

There are more fine details per square inch of the head than of the rest of the body.

[lonevoice]

Here's a re-post of the article you posted earlier today. You might want to monitor this one for some further discussion. If you'd like to keep track of the Shroud of Turin developments, just ask Swordmaker to add you to his (?) ping list.

[shroudie]

Now they both work; I copied one to the other. Sorry. It has been a long day. Since the story broke big today the site is getting three new visitors per second mostly from Google and Yahoo. Freepers are hitting the site fairly well, too. So for good luck:

http://shroudstory.com/faq-second-image.htm

Shroudie

[WVNan]

Place a cloth over a body and it will drape over the 3 dimensional form thus rendering a larger image of the frontal image than the 2 dimensional back image.

[Swordmaker]

The head is too big (out of proportion) to the body.

The body image on the back of body is slightly smaller than the image of the front of the body.

Not according to the science. Read the following research (you'll need Adobe Acrobat Reader):

Computerized Anthropometric Analysis of the Man of the Turin Shroud by Prof. ssa Emanuela Marinelli- Co-authored with Alessandro Cagnazzo and Prof. Giulio Fanti

There are more fine details per square inch of the head than of the rest of the body.

That is debatable. People normally pay more attention to faces and there is more detail to be seen in a face. The body images actually have quite a bit of detail in the wounds from the scourging. As to the body image itself, I agree there is little detail, but what detail is there to image or even see in a featureless skin? Looking at a photograph of a portion nude body, without reference points, it is sometimes impossible to identify exactly what part of the body one is seeing.

The fact of the image of the face also appearing on the back of the cloth may lead credibility to the proposition that the facial image may be an area of stronger imaging.

[shroudie]

Joe Zias, an Israeli anthropologist, is quoted as saying
the back image is about 2 inches shorter than the front image. But that is wrong; it is the other way around. The reason for the longer DORSAL image was pointed out by Fred Zugibe of the former head of forensic medicine at Columbia University. Several other forensic experts agree with Zugibe. Zubibe has noted that the head was tilted forward. Hence, here is an example of distortion in the image where
the "longer" neck on the dorsal end causes the measurement of the Man of the Shroud to appear to be different from the frontal view where the head, tilted forward, hides the neck and causes the measurement of the front to appear to be shorter. This also accounts for other apparent anomolies. It is certainly wrong to assume that an artist would have gotten it wrong and therefore it was an artist.

Shroudie

[Ohioan from Florida]

I believe the Shroud is real also. Have you ever read Unlocking the Secrets of the Shroud by Gilbert R. Lavoie? It's very good. He's an M.D., a specialist in internal and occupational medicine. He makes some very nice arguments for it's authenticity, and explains (to a degree) how the image fits the body of a crucified and risen Christ.

[Jape]

pls. put me on the ping list. i'm fascinated not just by the possibility it might be 'real', but by science's inability to explain it....