<HTML><BODY STYLE="font:10pt verdana; border:none;"><DIV>Kai "I prefer Paul McCartney's solo work" Eiselein asks:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"I have a question, why hammer on this guy for trying something that might<BR>explain how the shroud came into being? To my knowledge no one else has<BR>tried it, and no one else seems to have an explanation.<BR>Or are we now slamming any curiosity that isn't done on campus?<BR>His experiment IS intriguing. But before discrediting it, as so many seem<BR>eager to do, what are the possibilites a piece of distortion free glass<BR>*may* have been made in medevial times? Not intentionally, mind you, just a<BR>fluke. Which brings me to my next question. Are the odds of that happening<BR>greater or less than winning Powerball, for instance?<BR>Seems to me that there may be a slight chance of this occuring."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>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.<BR></DIV> <DIV>I'm disappointed in you, Kai, and also in the naively credulous Virginia DeLeon on <STRONG>The Spokesman Review</STRONG>. 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. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>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.)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>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! </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>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. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>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 <STRONG>The Spokesman Review's</STRONG> 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? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm off now to buy Brother Carl and I a pair of twenty-dollar doctorates from the Universal Life Church, <A href="http://www.ulc.org">www.ulc.org</A>, 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!)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment</DIV> <DIV><A href="http://www.auntie-establishment.com">www.auntie-establishment.com</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML><br clear=all><hr>Get more from the Web FREE MSN Explorer download : <a href='http://explorer.msn.com'>http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></p>