Dating

Adult Hardcore Porn Picturesdating Pictures Dating Pictures of Jesus - The Second Face Picture - The Shroud of Turin

Adult Hardcore Porn Picturesdating Pictures Dating

h Hardcore rsearch searchssearchasearchpo Adult l Picturesdating u Hardcore s Adult UsearchTsearchusearchsian+searchosearche Hardcore u Picturesdating saBUTT+SEXY+GAY+searcho Adult en+searchn Picturesdating lBUTT+SEXY+GAYngr1327576787453_Re+ Hardcore a Adult isearchg+searchn Picturesdating l Hardcore n Adult er Porn e Porn da Adult isearchgSsearchX+ Hardcore Asearcha Porn +worussian+women+in+lengerie+datinge Picturesdating + Adult n Picturesdating l Picturesdating n Porn ei Picturesdating +d Porn tin Picturesdating m Picturesdating w Hardcore tBUTT+SEXY+GAY searchaasearchesearchizsearcht Hardcore osearch. Hardcore Tsearche Adult a Picturesdating osearchnsearch BUTT+SEXY+GAYfsearchh Picturesdating asearch Hardcore esearchu Porn r Picturesdating dsearchfsearchr browning would also heat the cellulose fiber sufficiently to change its crystalline structure and cause it to change color as well. That has not happened. Where a picture bearing bit of coating is removed, either with adhesive or with a reducing agent such as diimide, the fiber beneath is clear and un-ablated.

A Maillard reaction seems more promising because of the presence of amines needed for a Maillard reaction. Of course, it didn't need to be Jesus; at least chemically. It could have been any recently deceased person.

Patterns of Discontinuity in the Pictures of Jesus

The pattern of the brown color is not uniform. Scientist refer to the way the brownish tint is distributed in the pictures as discontinuities of color. Along a single fiber there may be a stretch of color, then a clear stretch, and then some more color. Moreover, one fiber may have color, the one next to it may not, and so forth in alternating or seemingly erratic patterns.

In looking at the Shroud, if we step back from the pattern of discontinuous bits of caramel-brown, our eyes see an average color. Where there are many bits of color we see a darker color. Where there are fewer bits we see a lighter color. We can see this effect by looking at this graphic-picture from across the room.

Step back farther and a bleary, ghostlike picture of Jesus appears on the Shroud. This is exactly how the picture of Jesus is recorded (the picture on the left is as it appears on the Shroud).

Then, with a film camera, we photograph the ghostlike picture. If we look at negative before making a print we see a startling, realistic picture of a man (as we see in the picture on the right).

An interest theory about how some bits of melanoidins from a chemical reaction formed into a picture of Jesus is an essay, The Shroud of Caiaphas at The Shroud of Turin Story.

The Other Picture of Jesus on the Shroud of Turin

The second face picture reinforced the hypothesis that the pictures on the Shroud are the result of a very natural, complex chemical reaction such as a Maillard reaction.

It is important to note that there will be two evaporation-model chemical coatings on the cloth. The side of the cloth that faced the sun and dried the fastest will have a dominant coating of starch fractions and saccharides from the soap. The other side will have a lesser coating. Both sides will react to amines since some of the vapors will diffuse through the cloth. Indeed, we should expect to have a more distinct image on one side of the cloth and a less distinct image on the other. And we do! That is the significance of the discovery of a second facial picture on the Shroud.

Fake Pictures of Jesus?

If we want to believe that the Shroud is not genuine then we have to consider some basic questions. How did the faker of relics accomplish this.

How did a faker of relics alter the chemical properties of the carbohydrate coating to create the color and how did he do so with such artistic precision -- on both sides of the cloth?

The history of art is the story of the evolution of styles, techniques, methods and technology. Every work of art, and fakery is no exception, has precedents. When a new technique is discovered it is exploited; and over time it is refined and improved. Where are the precedents for pictures such as those that we find on the Shroud? Where are the other works in this new-found technology? Are we to imagine that some genius invented a new way to create pictures, that one picture was made, and the technology was lost to history?

How did  he create a suitable negative picture hundreds of years before the discovery of photographic negativity? How did he know that he had it right? How, without a camera and film, could he test his work? The negativity is extraordinarily precise and correct.

The bigger question is why? What was his purpose; his motive? If we are to ask why he created an extraordinarily complex chemical picture, in negative, we must ask some other why questions.

Why did he go against conventional expectations of his era? Why did he create a picture with wounds from nails that went through Jesus' wrists? All art and all expectation throughout medieval Europe showed Jesus nailed to his cross through the palms of his hands. Why is Jesus shown completely naked, unlike in all artistic depictions everywhere in every era?

Despite many attempts to do so, no one has found or invented an artistic or crafty technique that can reproduce even a few of the characteristics of the images. But that does not mean, that in the future, someone will not find a method to create such images. But if someone does so, a tenacious question will remain:

How likely is it that there would be such a one-of-a-kind work of art for which there are no known precedents; created by methods that were never again exploited?

Any method that might be devised must be scientifically credulous, fit into the history of art and conform to the cultural expectations in which the technology was supposedly employed. If not, it will be seen as newly invented art designed to mimic an otherwise unexplained natural process or a supernatural event. The skeptic has a dilemma. To believe that the Shroud is fakery he or she must rely on an underlying belief that transcends scientific fact.

Chiaroscuro Pictures of Jesus

Lean over and look down into a perfectly still, smooth-surfaced pool of water and you will see a perfectly formed picture of yourself. But drop a pebble into the water or allow a breeze to ripple the surface and the image becomes indistinct, fuzzy and unclear. It looks like an out-of-focus photograph. But the focus is not really off. In a naturally reflected picture, your eyes are the lenses that provide focus. The reflection surface is wrinkled and causes reflected light to go off in different directions. It distorts the resolution of the image. While the analogy is not a perfect one it suggests a potential problem for a natural image explanation. (It is no less a problem for those who advance theories about radiation or some mysterious force leaving a picture on the cloth as a body miraculously passes through the cloth).

The images on the Shroud are not only very well focused but highly resolved. It is almost certain that in the first century a piece of linen was naturally wrinkled, that it even had creases from folding. This would affect picture resolution.

A reflecting pool was certainly mankind’s first mirror. The pictures of reflected light, and that is what they were, must have seemed miraculous or magical. Eventually man would learn to make other mirrors, first by polishing stone or metal and eventually by fixing metals such as mercury, tin or silver to pieces of glass. Of course, the glass had to be smooth and flat. If the glass was wavy or curved, any reflected picture would be highly distorted. We see this when we look into the special mirrors in carnival funhouses. Again there is an analogy that relates to the pictures on the Shroud of Turin. It is hard to imagine how any process could form an essentially undistorted image if the cloth was draped across a human form.

What assumption can we make about how Jesus’ body was positioned on the limestone shelf in the tomb? How flat was the shelf? Was it polished smooth or rough-hewn? We don’t know. Was the cloth smoothed out? In placing Jesus’ body on the shelf was the cloth pulled about, rippled in places, even creased in places? We can’t know. How closely did the cloth follow the contour of Jesus’ body? Was it pulled smooth? Did loving hands, in places, smooth it across the body? Did it stick in places to still wet blood or to remaining water from some washing? Were there flowers resting on the cloth or under the cloth? Image analysts and forensic pathologists argue that the image on the cloth is of a man with his knees bent slightly and with his head tilted forward as though resting on a pillow that was under the cloth. Assumptions about the shape of the cloth and how closely it followed the contours of Jesus’ body are difficult if not impossible. If wrapped closely, wide and grotesque distortion would result. But even if draped loosely, the distortion caused by the surface terrain of the cloth should be evident.

It becomes extremely difficult to imagine an image that was not very much distorted by shapes no matter how the image was formed. This is perhaps the most intuitively strong argument for thinking the image is the work of an artist. It would be a powerful argument were it not for the chemistry of the image and some of the other rather odd qualities of the pictures.

There is another problem that we must consider. Scientists refer to it as saturation. In the parlance of photography we might say that the pictures of Jesus are surprisingly not underexposed or overexposed. This means if the pictures are the product of a chemical reaction, the reaction ran long enough but not too long. What stopped the reaction at just the right time, everywhere on the pictures? There would need to be sufficient chemical reaction time and concentrations of reactants to cause highly discernable images. Similarly the reaction must end sufficiently early to avoid over saturation which would washout image detail. Computerized image analysis shows no saturation plateaus anywhere in the image. We can see this by looking at 3D plot of the images and noticing that there are no plateaus. In simple terms, the chemical process ended late enough to form a discernable image and early enough so it was not ruined.

Reactant exhaustion is one thing that would have ended the process. Another would have been separation of Jesus’ body from the cloth at just the right time.

Another problem is diffusion. If we accept the hypothesis that chemical changes to the carbohydrate coating on the Shroud’s fibers was caused by amine vapors, we must recognize that vapors diffuse and scatter when they come off of a body. Heavy amines molecules do not diffuse as greatly as those of lighter gases. Nonetheless they go isotropically in different directions. So precise are some of the features on the Shroud’s images that one pundit likened vaporous formation to painting a perfect copy of the Mona Lisa with aerosol spray paint.