The Shroud has been considered for centuries as one of the most famous and sacred relics of the Christian world respected. Thousands of faithful have blindly believed that the piece of linen which is kept in the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin, Italy, was the blanket that wrapped the dead body of Jesus Christ in the tomb after his crucifixion. However, scientists, forensic and historians are not as clear that this version is true, and have established an intense debate to clarify many aspects and doubtful about the origin of the shroud and its accuracy. Infallible analysis finds that carbon-14 remains blood on the shroud displayed correspond to a man who died a century after Jesus Christ. From here, the hypothesis that the Shroud is a medieval forgery by an expert artist has gained more strength and relevance. Who could be behind this plot? What skills were necessary to create a relic of this magnitude and not raise suspicion for centuries? Odyssey presents this spectacular documentary that points to Leonardo Da Vinci as the only person capable of creating a counterfeit so perfect, thanks to its rigorous knowledge of anatomy and its virtuoso artistic technique.
Download documental:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=WWNG9NCW
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U6TEAZHK
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=3JJN8PPG
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XX3KK1EV
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=2MKAJTO2
http://rapidshare.com/files/331563278/Santa.part1.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/331563640/Santa.part2.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/331563379/Santa.part3.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/331563322/Santa.part4.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/331563482/Santa.part5.rar
been vividly discussed the origin of the relic. Those who believe that used in the burial of Christ, have coined the term "sindología" (Greek- σινδων sindon , word used in the Gospel according to Mark to refer to the cloth that Joseph of Arimathea bought to use of burial sheet.) Hence, also called the Shroud relic , term not usually employ mystic who doubt the origin of the relic.
may be impossible to completely close the controversy over the material, because several defenders are willing to accept supernatural explanations of the origin of the image (which is unprovable), while most skeptics dismiss them. Three independent tests of radiocarbon (from the same and controversial shows) the have been dated between 1260 and 1390.
Analysis of samples: Radiocarbon
In 1988, the Holy See allowed three research centers to perform independent tests radiocarbon on a piece of one corner of the shroud. Both the Universities of Oxford, like Arizona and the Federal Institute of Technology, Switzerland agreed to date the cloth between the XIII and XIV (1260-1390), although some recently published chemical analysis indicate that the sample used may not be valid . The scientific community has asked the Holy See to authorize more samples, including the part of the fabric that carries the image, but have been denied. One possible explanation is that, if the image is genuine, the process of dating would be committing a sacrilege by destroying the samples. Another explanation is that they are reluctant to date is definitely the sheet.
Under typical conditions, radiocarbon dating is a very precise science, and materials can be dated to 2000 years old with a margin of error of one year. However, it is not free of errors. It was mainly developed for application to newly unearthed objects and protected from human contact until the start of the examination, which is not the case with the sheet. The head of the Swiss laboratory that examined the cloth (Dr. Willi Wolfli) stated that "The C-14 method is not without terribly inaccurate results when there are problems not evident in the samples examined. Significant errors occur constantly in nature unspecified "Even with all for this test is also sent three other tissue samples, and that consideration was treated as a double-blind (at any time scientists knew the identity of the tissues) and fabrics despite being several centuries old (belonging to a Nubian tomb, the mummy of Cleopatra or a medieval coat) the rest were dated as expected, and such fabrics also had human contact soon after its discovery as similar to the Shroud. Chemical
In a 2000 study based on X-rays, Joseph Marino and Sue Benford possible marks found a patch that runs diagonally across the area from which samples were drawn. Therefore concluded that the samples examined by the three laboratories were contaminated by this repair attempt. Later commented that the lab results show a bias angle for the seam: the first sample in Arizona dated in 1238, the second in 1430, falling between them the results of Oxford and Switzerland. This should be added that the deviation of the results of C-14 of the three laboratories is beyond the limits of the χ ² test Pearson, a discrepancy for which they require further explanation.
area microchemical tests also found traces of vanillin absent in the rest of the web. Vanillin is caused by the thermal decomposition of lignin , a member of the cotton complex polymer. This product usually found in medieval materials but not in older clothing, as it decreases over time. For example, vanillin was not found on the packaging of the Dead Sea Scrolls .
Image features
Scholars of the image as John P. Jackson, director of the Turin Shroud Center of Colorado and former head of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) or PhD in Physics Manuel M. Carreira have investigated Shroud, and have been tested including the following image:
- The image penetrates only a few fibrils and, moreover, only the surface of the wires. The fibers are colored individually. No pigment or foreign substances.
- The image intensity is in proportion to the distance between a body and a cloth to cover him. So that you can get the three-dimensional image.
- The maximum intensities of the front and back images are equal.
- The image is of great anatomical precision and detail.
- red stains are blood and beneath no picture.
- No pictures on the sides of the body, but blood stains on contact side of the fabric.
- Both sides agree the image is aligned vertically.
Both scholars assert that no human hand, or a broadcast or any type of radiation explains all these features together. There is no physical explanation to explain simultaneously the high resolution of the image and its intensity is related to the distance between fabric and body. Any theory of image formation should explain all these features as a whole. The Shroud is, therefore a case to be resolved.
Theory on the formation of the picture by Da Vinci
Some people find a striking resemblance between this self-portrait of Leonardo da Vinci and Man of the Shroud.
Of the methods proposed by skeptics about the creation of the image in the Middle Ages, some people no doubt consider the shroud as the first picture of the world, attributing the authorship of Leonardo da Vinci. According to them, the image would have been produced with the help of a magic lantern , a simple projection system and silver compounds sensitive to light applied onto the fabric. This theory is supported by the resemblance that some are among the famous self-portrait of Leonardo and the image of the Shroud, although Leonardo was born several centuries after the first documented appearance of the sheet, considering that the Shroud of Turin is the same of Edessa, which some experts doubt.
The main proponents of this theory are Lillian Schwartz, a consultant graph of the School of Visual Arts in New York who became famous in the '80s for having identified the Mona Lisa as a self-portrait of Leonardo, the researcher Lynn Picknett, Professor of History Nicholas Allen Art, the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University in South Africa, who argues that the evidence that the shroud was a picture of da Vinci would be to find traces of silver sulfate in the shroud, and Professor Larissa Tracy, the Longwood University in Virginia. All of them claim that Leonardo had all the necessary knowledge in anatomy and materials to manufacture a primitive camera obscura to make a fake shroud that would replace the fake relic of poor quality that was in possession of the Savoy family since 1453.
Note: All information copied here only makes reference to what is shown in the documentary.
0 comments:
Post a Comment