Search Results: photography

boyfriend of 4 years when he got back on IG to promote his network of photography followed some friends from school (girls) and i know he’s never liked girls pictures of butts and or selfies when we were together. But he did like this one girls images she was in them but not provocatively like it was one of her on this high ass mountain, but the view was nice and one of her looking over on a snow cover top snowboarding and another was waterfalls of Hawaii. Should I be upset? Or was the scenery the reason and not her so much?

Girl A) She’s a Yoga Instructor
Into health, meditation and music. Mother of one from previous relationship. Very friendly, warm and kind. Runs her own business and plays numerous instruments and is an excellent singer. Likes to cook and has lots of friends too.
Looks: long dark hair, brown eyes, glasses, normal weight, cute smile.

Girl B) She’s an Accountant Very into fitness, running marathons, fit body, muscular and eats very healthy. Loves going to the gym. Also loves to cook and has a dog. But she can be needy and her house is slightly messy. Looks: muscular toned body, booty goals, dark mid length hair and hazel eyes.

Girl C) She’s a Designer
Into all things art, painting, photography, hiking and outdoors. Easy going but she’s very shy and quiet until you get to know her. She’s a neat freak and a vegetarian. Looks: Long blonde hair, blue eyes, not skinny but curvy in the right places - great boobs but not the most confident.

Do you believe the ‘Shroud of Turin’ is Authentic/ Legit?

I watched a religious film with my Dad, and one of the scenes previews or insinuates the ‘Shroud of Turin.’

I seen another (based on a true story) film (The Case For Christ if anyone’s interested; it’s more data-collective, by an Atheist Journalist) once before, that also showed the cloth.

I didn’t know what the cloth was called- if it even had a name- until I had searched it up.

I read/skimmed a research article to follow this up, and apparently the major facts and mysteries/ “x-factors” by these scientists/scientist, can be summed up as:

• (X) the visual quality in photographic/ art terms
• (X) the chemical makeup
• (X) alongside the biological matter on/within the cloth

so

visual (scheme) quality: the cloth, if it were a painting was “painted” as a negative, meaning colors and shading is reversed than normal paintings or pictures, and for the time the cloth was discovered: no artist could possibly know of this method of *Paint.* Photography was not a thing.

chemical make-up and biological matter:

it appears that the print could only have been made, really, by a source of light and radiation, specifically. The dried blood also would’ve been impossible to transfer, unless again, direct radiation was involved.

—————————————————————

Some speculate it was when the man named Jesus of Nazareth had “rose again on the third day,” as told and described, by Jewish and Christian religious texts.

So what do you think?

Did some religious enthusiast try to make it “appear believable?” Or is the ‘Shroud of Turin’ credible evidence, of a ‘religious figure/individual,’ who transfigured in a tomb long ago?

(All images sourced from Google)