In article
<af89533f-612f-47e0-8939-94d818bd4ac9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Mam.bi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On May 7, 12:02 pm, Rolf R <R1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > In article
> > <42671d64-ad59-4082-bfe8-7d89517bf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >
> > abra.rice...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > > El Sagrado Sudario de Turin es y se queda un enigma, ; esto a sido
> > > confirmado tambien **** el director del laboratorio mas im****tante de
> > > los trés que han analizado el tejido con el carbono 14. El director
> > > admitiò un grave error en la datatiòn.
> > > Lo unico medio que el hombre tiene para resolver el enigma es
> > > reconocer que efectivamente en aquel Sagrado Lino occuriò algo de
> > > inexplicable : la Resurrecciòn de Cristo.
> >
> > > Sitio web :
http://digilander.libero.it/antoniobragadin/mystery.htm
> > > Email : ricercapap....@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Estás muy atrasado en la noticia. Ya está claro que: El sudario de
Turín
> > fue PINTADO en el siglo XIII. Que el pintor es casi seguro fue
Leonardo
> > da Vinci cuyo rostro aparece en el mismo. Que da Vince era el único
que
> > podía haber hecho esa imagen en negativo y se sabe dónde él
> > experimentaba hacer esas imágenes en negativo. Que la imagen no puede
> > haber sido de un hombre real, orque la parte que muestra la espalda es
> > muchísimo más corta que la imagen del frente.
> >
> > Lo demás, es tratar de mantener el mito, para beneficio de los iconos
> > religiosos.
>
> Perdon. Sera otro pintor. Da Vinci nacio en 1452 y murio en 1519. Hay
> pruebas que el sudario existia mucho antes que Da Vinci naciera.
>
> Para obtener mas datos:
>
> http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudario_de_Tur%C3%ADn
PLEASE CHECK ALSO: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/shroud.html
THE ARTICLE ON THE SHROUD IS NOW BEING REVISED.
I APOLOGIZE FOR MY ERROR IN THE DATE:
This is a further clarification.
PIDO EXCUSAS **** LA FECHA EQUIVOCADA.
Ésta es una clarificación sobre el mismo, con diversos puntos de vista.
For years opponents of the Shroud's authenticity have been proclaiming
that the image was a painting (McCrone) or a rubbing (Joe Nickell). The
argument of this book presupposes that the image on the Shroud is not a
painting and, in fact, is that of an actual human body: considerable
admissions from the sindonoclast camp. It is a position that concedes
that no ancient artistic technique is known by which the anatomically
correct human figure on the Turin Shroud could have been manufactured.
It accepts that the Shroud fits no medieval artistic genre or style. The
Shroud's image is very faint, superficial (it is known that the image on
the Turin Shroud resides only on the peaks of the fibers) and lacks
artists' pigments and brush strokes. (See Isabel Piczek's article [on
this website], "Is The Shroud of Turin a Painting?", demoli****ng the
notion of the Shroud as a painting.)
The title of this book asks "In Whose Image?" The authors provide an
answer: Leonardo da Vinci was genius enough to have created it. On this
point it is difficult to disagree, judging from the work of Leonardo and
Vasari's high praise of his genius. Leonardo's notebooks have revealed
an incredibly fertile scientific curiosity and creativity. All would
agree in a casual way that IF anyone could have invented a rudimentary
method of photography in the Renaissance, he is a plausible candidate.
They go further: Only Leonardo could have done it. This is probably not
true, as other artists are known to have studied anatomy, experimented
with sfumato technique, and, as alchemists, worked with vegetal and
mineral chemicals. The authors' next conclusion is one that does not
follow by the rules of logic or history: Because Leonardo could have
done it, therefore he DID do it. He did it, moreover, not by any method
of conventional art, but by means of photography, and the Shroud is
proof of it.
Shroud "politics" aside, Leonardo as author of the Shroud is a
wonderfully exciting, if sensationalist, idea. It draws strength from
the science of radiocarbon (C14) dating, which in 1988 proclaimed, with
95% certainty, that the Shroud was produced in the late Middle Ages
between 1260 and 1390. Sadly for the premise of this book, Leonardo was
not born until 1452 (died 1519). The C14 labs, however, also reinforce
the message of confidence in their dates by adding that they are 99.9%
certain the Shroud was produced between 1000 and 1500, making it
chronologically possible for Leonardo to have made it.
The Leonardo connection loses virtually its entire scientific
underpinning, however, when one notices that the labs are thus only
about 5% certain of the extended time span and only 2.5% certain the
Shroud could be as late as 1500. They are, after all, 95% certain it was
made 1260-1390. Since 1988, the only doubts about these late radiocarbon
dates for the Shroud are pointing to a much earlier time, and not in the
chronological direction needed by Picknett and Prince. Blissful, the
authors further believe that the face of the man on the Shroud is a
self-photograph of Leonardo, one that closely resembles his well known
self-****trait in red chalk with only the salient highlights of his
features sketched in. Meanwhile, they suggest that the body on the
Shroud is that of a crucified cadaver studied by Leonardo. So, they
suppose, history's proto photo is a clever composite. Everyone knows
that the face on the Shroud does seem on sight to be disembodied; this
is owing to the absence of image where the Shroud was stretched over the
collarbone, too distant from the body at that point to leave its marks.
Ockham's razor would prefer this mundane explanation over one so
patently and tendentiously striving to make itself respectable.
|
