[Vision2020] Shroud of Turin Questions

Tue Mar 22 16:56:17 PST 2005

Too cool and so well said!  Bravo!!!!

>From: "Joan Opyr" <auntiestablishment at hotmail.com>
>To: "Vision2020 Moscow" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Shroud of Turin Questions
>Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:39:04 -0800
>
>Kai "I prefer Paul McCartney's solo work" Eiselein asks:
>
>"I have a question, why hammer on this guy for trying something that might
>explain how the shroud came into being? To my knowledge no one else has
>tried it, and no one else seems to have an explanation.
>Or are we now slamming any curiosity that isn't done on campus?
>His experiment IS intriguing. But before discrediting it, as so many seem
>eager to do, what are the possibilites a piece of distortion free glass
>*may* have been made in medevial times? Not intentionally, mind you, just a
>fluke. Which brings me to my next question. Are the odds of that happening
>greater or less than winning Powerball, for instance?
>Seems to me that there may be a slight chance of this occuring."
>
>
>And there's a slight chance that I'll be named Ms. Potato Bug of Briggs.  
>I'm second in line, one in front of Nate Wilson, but one behind the 
>snowball headed for hell.
>
>I'm disappointed in you, Kai, and also in the naively credulous Virginia 
>DeLeon on The Spokesman Review.  To your knowledge, no one else has tried 
>to recreate the image on the Shroud of Turin?  Or, to your knowledge, no 
>one else has tried the paint plus glass plus sun-bleaching method Nathan 
>Wilson used?  As a journalist, you first need to formulate some clearer 
>questions; secondarily, you need to do at least a little background 
>research.  The image on the Shroud of Turin has been recreated with some 
>accuracy more times than I have the Googling patience to cite.
>
>When I was studying medieval (and later Anglo-Saxon) era literature, 
>history, and religion at North Carolina State University, the University of 
>Strathclyde, and Ohio State, I had an academic interest in the medieval 
>trade in holy relics; it was a brisk business.  When it comes to shrouds 
>purporting to be the burial cloth of Jesus, the Shroud of Turin is 
>certainly the Mac Daddy, meaning that it's the most famous, but it is by no 
>means the only one.  There's the Shroud of Cadouin (whose known provenance, 
>1115 CE, pre-dates the Shroud of Turin by between 145 and 275 years); 
>there's the Shroud of Mandylion; the Shroud of Veronica; the Shroud of 
>Besancon, and on and on.  Medieval forgers were often very clever, and the 
>punters (i.e., the churches, cathedrals, nobles and peasants who bought 
>their wares) were very credulous.  Any medieval cathedral worth its salt 
>displayed holy relics that were meant inspire awe and be venerated by the 
>masses.  Medieval con-men (and con-women) sold vials of Christ's blood, 
>splinters of the True Cross, the toe-bones and finger-bones of saints, and 
>countless holy cloths with various dubious claims to distinction.  This is 
>the veil of the Virgin Mary!  This is Mary Magdalene's handkerchief!  This 
>is Jesus' Visa bill from the last supper!  The trade in holy relics was 
>bustling and virtually unchecked from about 4th century until the 
>Reformation.  (And, if you were to visit Lourdes or Medjugore today, you 
>could contribute your hard-earned Euros to its modern-day equivalent by 
>shelling out for a blessed vial of water or a glow-in-the-dark plastic 
>model of the BVM.)
>
>Keeping all of that in mind, here are some answers to your questions about 
>my own skepticism regarding Nate's experiment that have nothing to do with 
>NSA, Christ Church, or Logos.  First, the Shroud of Turin is three feet, 
>seven inches wide.  The largest pane of glass that could be blown by the 
>greatest Venetian glass artisans of the day (which would be the late-13th 
>to mid-14th century, if we trust the Shroud's 1988 carbon dating) was 
>approximately 33 cm, i.e., about 13 inches.  If you get out your tape 
>measure, you'll find that Nate's medieval "shadow shroud" forger would have 
>to have had access to multiple panes of very expensive, very fragile panes 
>of glass -- the fragility being due to the high potash content of medieval 
>blown glass.  That's one strike against Nate's theory.  Strike two is that 
>the Shroud of Turin presents both frontal and dorsal images, with no lines 
>indicating its having been laid on a pane (or panes) of glass.  Finally, as 
>Dr. Cheng has pointed out, there was no distortion-free glass until the 
>17th century.  None.  Nada.  Niente.  So, there you have it -- three good 
>reasons to question the "shadow shroud" theory that are completely 
>unrelated to Nate's affiliation with the various arms of the Wilson-Jones 
>Church.  Some may call Nate a genius, but then some may call me Imelda 
>Marcos.  I just bought two new pairs of shoes in the same week.  Imagine 
>that!
>
>FYI, if you're interested in faking a Shroud of Moscow (and selling it in 
>Lourdes or Medjugore), there are many interesting theories and suggestions 
>regarding possible methods.  Nate's is certainly intriguing, but it's not 
>very likely.  There are traces of red ochre on the Shroud of Turin and some 
>signs that the forger may have used a then-common rubbing technique to 
>create the darker parts of the image.  The blood drips on the Shroud are 
>authentic, so someone dripped a bit of AB in all the right places.  Also, 
>more likely than the shadow-glass technique Nate used is the possibility 
>that the Shroud of Turin was made via a primitive camera obscura.  A linen 
>cloth is soaked in a solution of silver nitrate, hung in a dark room, and 
>exposed via pinhole light to a statue or (and this is a bit grim) a 
>suspended dead body and the image is thereby burned onto the cloth.
>
>But enough about shrouds, or saint's toes, or the fingernail clippings of 
>John the Baptist.  You asked for valid, unbiased reasons to question Nate's 
>theory; I gave you three, easy as pie.  Now, can you or anyone else explain 
>The Spokesman Review's unquestioning acceptance of Nate's apparent 
>assertion that he is a "professor" at a fully-accredited, 
>academically-sound institution of higher learning?  Nate and the rest of 
>the NSA faculty are professors in the same way that people who get medical 
>degrees from Caribbean schools that offer "credit for life experience" are 
>doctors.  You cannot, in the real, recognized, accredited world of 
>qualified universities, proclaim that you're a professor because your 
>father happens to own and operate a college.  For heaven's sake, this isn't 
>"Gilligan's Island."  What next?  Will NSA recreate the internal combustion 
>engine using a couple of coconuts and Ginger Grant's bikini?
>
>I'm off now to buy Brother Carl and I a pair of twenty-dollar doctorates 
>from the Universal Life Church, www.ulc.org, where I got my instant online 
>ordination.  I think I'll be a Doctor of Metaphysics, and Carl can be a 
>Doctor of Universal Love.  You'd like that, wouldn't you, Carl?  (No, I'm 
>sorry.  There are no doctorates in X-Box Golf.  That would be entirely 
>inappropriate!)
>
>Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
>www.auntie-establishment.com
>
>   Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : 
>http://explorer.msn.com
>_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/