Religion

struggle4progress

(126,400 posts)

64. Perhaps not: I may just be running my mouth again

Fri Feb 14, 2014, 05:11 PM

Feb 2014

The silver sulphate theory, however, seems not to be particularly good for a number of reasons: the exposure would take days of bright sunlight; silver sulphate is only barely soluble in water and appears not at adhere well to such cloth; it would be critical to remove almost all undarkened silver sulphate afterwards, since it would otherwise darken with time; and there's no evidence of medieval artists using such a technique elsewhere

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

79 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Could ancient earthquake explain Shroud of Turin? [View all] Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 OP

Except it hasn't been explained how it was fabricated. rug Feb 2014 #1

It was a miracle! Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #3

And controlled inquiry has not explained how it was made. rug Feb 2014 #4

Hmmm. longship Feb 2014 #9

What guy? I hadn't heard that. rug Feb 2014 #11

Nope. All one has to do is falsify it. longship Feb 2014 #15

That really doesn't do it. rug Feb 2014 #18

Well, the accuracy is high enough to state that the shroud certainly is not a 1st century object. longship Feb 2014 #20

Not quite. There was no fourteenth century technique to create it. rug Feb 2014 #36

So you are certain that there was no Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #39

Don't be coy, Warren. rug Feb 2014 #40

You made the assertion that it could not Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #41

You made the assertion it's a hoax. rug Feb 2014 #42

It is a hoax based on its dating. Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #43

That's just a part of it. Replicate it. rug Feb 2014 #44

Been done edhopper Feb 2014 #45

Been debunked. rug Feb 2014 #46

By members of STURP? edhopper Feb 2014 #47

Compared to the Italian Committee for Checking Claims on the Paranormal? rug Feb 2014 #51

LIKE debating a creationist edhopper Feb 2014 #56

"Debunked" by Catholic idiots who know nothing about identifying skepticscott Feb 2014 #72

Ok, post the evidence instead of idiotically calling people idiots. rug Feb 2014 #74

Try reading a book, ruggie skepticscott Feb 2014 #76

McCrone is hardly the last word. rug Feb 2014 #79

I haven't heard anything about a "deathbed confession," either. okasha Feb 2014 #65

And there is edhopper Feb 2014 #68

It's not a negative skepticscott Feb 2014 #71

There are several people edhopper Feb 2014 #33

if you're referring to Joe Nickell, I'm not impressed. rug Feb 2014 #34

The Joe Nickel effort at replication okasha Feb 2014 #66

Yes edhopper Feb 2014 #67

It doesn't even match the Biblical description exboyfil Feb 2014 #2

Shhhhhh. Facts matter little when dealing with religious beliefs. cleanhippie Feb 2014 #5

In that case, please do explain how it was made. rug Feb 2014 #6

It was made by a special very local earthquake. Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #7

I see. You have no explanation. rug Feb 2014 #12

It was a miracle! God made it Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #14

Lol! cleanhippie Feb 2014 #25

Clearly. Had you one you'd have produced it. rug Feb 2014 #35

It was aliens. trotsky Feb 2014 #8

If it was done by hoaxsters, there should be evidence of how it was done. rug Feb 2014 #13

"God did it" Goblinmonger Feb 2014 #16

That is the case. rug Feb 2014 #17

Do you believe it was the shroud of Jesus Goblinmonger Feb 2014 #19

I doubt it. But I'm more interested in knowing how it was done. rug Feb 2014 #23

I like the da Vinci theory. reusrename Feb 2014 #27

Did they find any silver sulphate on the shroud? rug Feb 2014 #28

Is this a test? reusrename Feb 2014 #29

No. Isn't the da Vinci theory that he was commissioned to replace an earlier one? rug Feb 2014 #30

Whether or not da Vinci ever made use of one of those is still up for debate. reusrename Feb 2014 #31

Well, there's another theory that the Mona Lisa is a self-portrait. rug Feb 2014 #32

the camera obscura was not a camera in the modern sense, but merely a device struggle4progress Feb 2014 #59

facts are not important. Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #60

Apparently not. rug Feb 2014 #62

Has RationalWiki let me down yet again? rug Feb 2014 #61

Sort of. The camera obscura doesn't require Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #63

Perhaps not: I may just be running my mouth again struggle4progress Feb 2014 #64

And the fact that pigments were found edhopper Feb 2014 #69

The Shroud is of no particular importance to me; it is irrelevant to my theological views; and struggle4progress Feb 2014 #70

Submit the whole thing for independent analysis. AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #48

Won't ever happen edhopper Feb 2014 #49

It has, at least twice. Thevresults are inconclusive. rug Feb 2014 #50

I thought McCrone did this in 1979/80? enlightenment Feb 2014 #54

hmmm edhopper Feb 2014 #57

He did, and none of those findings have been proven false skepticscott Feb 2014 #73

I personally think it was not the real burial shroud. hrmjustin Feb 2014 #10

Apparently it does not even match 1st century burial practices. longship Feb 2014 #21

That same rule apples to all those "Jesus' Foreskin" artifacts, too. arcane1 Feb 2014 #52

Looking for Neutrons in a Rock Crushing Experiment struggle4progress Feb 2014 #22

My gut reactions to the Carpinteri claims struggle4progress Feb 2014 #24

I hope you didn't have to do a Google search skepticscott Feb 2014 #37

Carpinteri went off the rails with his piezo-electric-rock-fracture-induced-nuclear-reaction theory struggle4progress Feb 2014 #38

One good thing about DU - we argue about EVERYTHING!!! Laf.La.Dem. Feb 2014 #26

LOL...no. Iggo Feb 2014 #53

No, an earthquake doesn't explain and doesn't need to skepticscott Feb 2014 #55

Amen edhopper Feb 2014 #58

Speaking of "starting with a conclusion and reasoning backwards", produce the "well known" technique rug Feb 2014 #75

It's called grisaille skepticscott Feb 2014 #77

40 seconds. rug Feb 2014 #78