It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Shroud of Turin

page: 1
11

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2019 @ 02:52 PM
link   
To anyone who is not familiar with the Illuminati card game, there is a card titled “Shroud of Turin” which mentions that the one in the museum is a fake, while the real one is used elsewhere in nightly rituals. You can read it in the image below.




A few years back I was reading a book called A Lifelong Passion by Andrei Maylunas and Sergei Mironenko, which has a bunch of Romanov diary entries and I came across one that was interesting. Look at the April 15 diary entry.



There are two references to “the Shroud”. Given that this is a diary entry for Good Friday and the “s” in shroud is capitalized, this is clearly supposed to mean the Shroud of Turin. Let me give a little backdrop to this diary entry. Nicholas II (Nicky) is visiting Coburg, Germany to attend the wedding of Ernest Louis, Grand Duke of Hesse and Princess Victoria Melita of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. The year is 1894, as you can see at the top of the page, and a few diary entries before this one, when he arrived in Coburg, he mentioned having been dropped off at the Schloss and put into an apartment. When searching Schloss, Coburg, Schloss Rosenau pops up. Schloss Rosenau was the birthplace and childhood home of Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and it is mentioned in quite a few entries like the one above. I don’t know what the compound looks like, or where exactly in Coburg Nicholas carried the shroud, but it seems like it would’ve been on, or near, the Rosenau compound. Schloss Rosenau is now a museum, but apparently the ducal heirs, headed by Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, reside at Schloss Callenberg, which is still in Coburg and not too far from Rosenau. I don’t know if there’s anything to this, but are there any ATS members from Germany who have noticed anything suspicious in or near Coburg? Maybe someone there can do a little investigation into this? Just the mention of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is enough for me to have warning bells go off, and whether or not someone believes the story of the Shroud of Turin, the truth is there is a group of individuals who enjoy partaking in secret rituals.




posted on Aug, 15 2019 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: KMY14

The one that has been scrutinized can not be duplicated.

That pretty much settles it for me.



posted on Aug, 15 2019 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: KMY14
and the “s” in shroud is capitalized, this is clearly supposed to mean the Shroud of Turin.

Even capitalised, it might be something specially made for the purpose of the church ritual, recalling the death and burial of Jesus.
edit on 15-8-2019 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2019 @ 03:42 PM
link   
All I know, is the only shroud known to exist was tested and proven to be a forgery.



posted on Aug, 15 2019 @ 03:56 PM
link   
If you actually put a sheet on somebody's dirty face, it won't look like a painting, it will look like this:


But people see what they want to see.



posted on Aug, 15 2019 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Some believe it was created by Leonardo Da Vinci.



posted on Aug, 16 2019 @ 01:44 PM
link   
The Shroud of Turin has a glaring mistake which nobody wants to address yet it proves it's not what it's supposed to be.
Go and search the net for Shroud images. They'll show you a front view and a back view but rarely a clear view of the full Shroud clearly. But that makes no difference.If the Shroud wrapped a body as it's shown (wrapped from the feet under the back, over the head and down the front) it does not show the crown of the head. The front and back view of the head touches but no crown as would be shown if it was wrapped as they portray. Figure that one out.



posted on Aug, 16 2019 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: crayzeed
If the Shroud wrapped a body as it's shown (wrapped from the feet under the back, over the head and down the front) it does not show the crown of the head. The front and back view of the head touches but no crown as would be shown if it was wrapped as they portray. Figure that one out.

Yeah, I've always thought that was a pretty glaring mistake. If it was wrapped the way it appears to have been wrapped, there should be a dark, dirty line linking the top of the figure's head in the front to the top of the head in the back. In order for it to look the way it is now, it would have to not touch the top of the head at all as it was folded over the top. I suppose they could have put a pillow or roll on the top of the head and wrapped the cloth over that, but that seems very unlikely. Looks like a flat cloth placed over a two-sided bas relief, with a gap between the two image sides showing the thickness of the stone.




posted on Aug, 20 2019 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI
Given that the time period is 1894, and people were more religious back then than they are now, I don't think there was anything nefarious going on in that diary scene. I think it was an honest ceremony. However, that's not to say that there weren't/aren't other people at play who don't have a hidden agenda. From 1453 to the 1980's the House of Savoy had ownership of it, and this house was linked to Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. There is a Maria Pia of Savoy, who was the daughter of Victor Emmanuel II of Italy. She married Luís I of Portugal, who was the grandson of Prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was the uncle of Prince Albert and had married into the Koháry family, creating the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha-Koháry line. This is the Catholic branch of the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha family. It is very possible that the house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is hiding something.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 02:31 PM
link   
After doing a little more investigation, I am now suspicious about the House of Savoy. This house goes all the way back to 1003 and seems to have ties to the Templars. Apparently, a French knight named Geoffroi de Charney had possession of the shroud until he died in 1356 at the Battle of Poitiers. There is another Geoffroi de Charney who was a Templar knight and burned at the stake in 1314. These two Geoffrois are probably related. Then there is a woman, named Margaret de Charney, who is recorded having deeded the shroud to the House of Savoy. At this time the head of the House of Savoy was Louis, Duke of Savoy. His father was Amadeus VIII, also known as Felix V, who reigned as pope in opposition to popes Eugene IV and Nicholas V. Why would Margaret de Charney deed the shroud to this family? Something else that’s interesting is an image I found while looking through the house of Savoy. Does this man remind you of anyone you’ve seen before?

This is supposedly Amadeus VI, Count of Savoy, painted on a fresco by Andrea di Bonaiuto da Firenze. The fresco dates to the 1300s and is in the Basilica of Santa Maria Novella in Florence, Italy. Amadeus VI is the grandfather of antipope Felix V and great-grandfather of Louis, Duke of Savoy, the man who got the shroud from Margaret de Charney.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Iconic




All I know, is the only shroud known to exist was tested and proven to be a forgery.


Then you don't know squat because a forgery could be duplicated.
Science has no idea how it came into being. Open your mind and deny
ignorance.



new topics

top topics



 
11

log in

join