Shroud of Turin
(media.scored.co)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
The shroud first appeared in the 1300s so clearly there is an image on it visible without needing a photo negative.
Are you under the impression the visage on it was only discovered recently via photography?
Then reword your point because your point, as stated, suggests only one of two things:
A) The image isn't visible without a photo negative (it is, in fact, visible, so this statement is a lie)
B) The photo negatives must also date from the 14th century because it's impossible to photograph anything later (this is obviously stupid but it's the only possible other interpretation of whatever it is you're trying to say).
So instead of cryptic bullshit explain whatever it is you're trying to say. I can't read your mind so when I say your shit makes no sense it's because it makes no sense.
This isn't a difficult concept, all I'm saying is a person who's never seen photography isn't going to suddenly paint a monochrome picture with the colors inverted and then never use that technique again.
# What fucking colors are inverted, you baby-raping piece of shit?
# It's dark brown smudges on a lighter-brown piece of linen. THAT'S NOT A COLOR INVERSION, YOU LOW-IQ CUNT.
Yeah you *might* have a fucking point if the entire visage of alleged-Jesus on the cloth popped to life in all the "proper" colors in a photo negative, but guess what, that's not the fucking real world. That's your faggoty schizo make-believe world. The shroud is beige linen and reddish muddy smudges constituting the image of the body. The photo negative is dark linen with bluish-white smudges instead. Literally EVERY color painted on that cloth would pop to life, because that's how negatives work.
Do you think only 'certain' colors show up as a contrast when subject to a photo negative? Are you genuinely *that* clueless?