Diogenes wrote: ↑Sat Apr 01, 2023 9:51 pm
I don't know where you got this "projection" idea. Wherever, it's a poor one. You certainly do not explain it satisfactorily.
At a high level, all the viable explanations for the image formation involve some sort of projection. I'll get into this in detail when we look into how the image was formed.
Not only is there no mention of how the eyes are impossibly and inhumanly too close to the crown of the head, but that feature exactly conforms to the anatomical errors and style of 14th Century gothic artists. Coincidence?
Not a coincidence. One had to be the archetype of the other.
Also, there was no "projection." The image, if it came from a body, would be a contact image, caused by direct contact between the body and the cloth.
Only the blood stains was formed by contact. The cloth did not touch every part of the body, but was draped over it. So, there must be some projection involved. But, it is more complicated than this, which again I'll discuss at the end.
The rest of the claims and excuses for why the image does not look like a real body only serve to show how desperate is the effort to explain why a gothic painting on a 14th Century cloth does not look like it came from a human 1300 years earlier.
At a first order, it's anatomically correct. But I agree there are second order anomalies of the image. Again, I believe there is an image formation explanation that accounts for these.
There is a simple explanation for how this 14th Century cloth (carbon dating) has a 14th Century gothic artist's idea of human anatomy: It was painted by a 14th Century artist on a 14th Century cloth for the most common of reasons:
If you believe in the 1988 C-14 dating, please address my previous arguments refuting it.
If you believe it was painted, again this is against the conclusion of the 1978 STURP report. Please provide evidence paint was used.
To attract pilgrims to the church for monetary gain.
All medieval churches had relics in it. So, it really doesn't explain anything.
You've tried to explain away the many anatomical discrepancies, but failed to address at all the most glaring one, the eyes being several inches too high, too close to the top of the head.
I know you're not going to accept this now, but I believe the image formation explanation accounts for second order anomalies like this. I know everyone wants to discuss this now, but I will be presenting it. At the end of this debate, if I do not present it, you can call me out on it.
One more thing. Even if you [somehow] reject McCrone's detailed testing and analysis that shows no blood, and you really still believe there's blood on the cloth, it would hardly be surprising the artist used blood as paint if he was forging an image supposedly formed by human blood.
Is there any artist that has duplicated the details of the blood stains on the TS? Interestingly, as far as I know, all attempts of the duplication of the TS has not tried to do this.