I'm trying to remember the title of the book... but... its by the authors of the Hiriam Key, I think...

I read that the way the Shroud may have been produced was through a combination of blood and sweat allowed to soak the cloth, then left for a long time. This would have produced the effect. Their theory is that it is a post-torture image of Jaques DeMolay, after he was nailed to a door by the Inquisition. This, evidently, was a not-uncommon way of torturing someone in France at the time. (?)

I find it doubtful that a suitable pane of glass would have been used in such a fashion by a craftsman. Glass was reasonably rare and expensive in those days. (Think of all those castles with unglazed windows.) And large sheets of glass were not transportable. It just strikes me as very unlikely.

i think it may be an actual shroud, it seems pretty authentic.

The Shroud is a fake.
1 Its been carbon dated to the Middle Ages
2 The image should be stretched
3 It looks like DaVincis Self-Portrait

Bing, bing bing!!!

Just like many other manufactured relics sold by snake oil salesmen, this is no different.

The biggest giveaway is the stretching. This has, and can be, easily duplicated by wrapping oneself in such a shroud and seeing how the resulting image should be stretched when laid flat. The shroud image is not stretched (as it simply wouldn't have been as impressive if it was), and is painted on (no doubt with real blood). Carbon dating of the fibers of course, also put it centuries after the crucifixion, but of course shroud supporters claim the fire skewed this. Regardless, there is no such excuse for the lack of image stretching, so fake, fake fake....

Isn`t it probable that if this cloth was wrapped around the person the angle around the body would have caused the image imprint to be slightly distorted.The image on the shroud would suggest that it was placed onto a flat surface when the image was transfered.

Another thought wouldn`t the rest of the items such as the nails,crown and the cloths around his waste have been kept by the same people as the burial cloth as there were only a few people allowed near the body.

Originally posted by driley
I'm trying to remember the title of the book... but... its by the authors of the Hiriam Key, I think...

I read that the way the Shroud may have been produced was through a combination of blood and sweat allowed to soak the cloth, then left for a long time. This would have produced the effect. Their theory is that it is a post-torture image of Jaques DeMolay, after he was nailed to a door by the Inquisition.

Here are two of my posts from previous threads on the topic.

1.) The shroud is many things, and may or may not be His burial cloth. One thing it most certainly is not is a fake. If not His, it is Jacques DeMolay's shroud, and the method by which the image was imprinted is proof enough that this is no fake anything. If it was a fake, surely the hoaxers 700 yrs. ago would have made it easier to see. Unless of course they knew that photography and negative images would eventually make the image stand out.
lol....................its real. Real what is the question.
2.) The process that created the image could be a natural one, caused by the person's perspiration if the person's body was in extreme distress. The elements in the sweat would fix to the cloth in higher concentrations where the cloth was closest the skin, and leave an impression. This phenomenon has been seen on hospital sheets of terminal patients.
As for the nail holes, they are in the right spots for a crucifixion, above the wrists, and mid-foot.
The person is European looking, and though possibly Middle Eastern, more likely not.
The best theory I have read is that it is a cloth that was laid over the body of Jacques De Molay, after he had been extensively tortured. His tormentors took great pains to recreate the suffering of Jesus (allegedly), and this is why the image is so detailed in its record of the various injuries said to have been endured by Jesus.
My only doubts regarding this theory are related to the many times that the shroud appears to be referred to, and depicted, well before the 14th century, which was De Molay's era.

The most interesting theory I ever saw was that it was the product of an early form of photography.

This was on a TV documentary many, many years ago, so I know not if this theory has been 'debunked' by now - but I certainly don't believe it was the cloth used to bury the character, Jesus.

Yes, there was quite a good documentary a few years back, that showed EXACTLY what kind of impression a bloody body wrapped in such a shroud would leave. It would be elongated as the cloth wrapped around the 3 dimensional body would stretch the image.

It is absolutely not a contact on body image. All images of bodies wrapped with cloth show the globe effect which looks nothing like the Shroud of Turin. It is not painted. It is a photograph using camera obscura techniques, DaVinci had info. in his notebooks on it. It explains all the anomalies. Head too small, arms and fingers too long etc. The cloth may be very old, even 1st century but that doesn't determine when the image was placed on the linen. Also the image is of a man who is not DEAD. CORPSES DON'T BLEED!!!

[edit on 4-7-2009 by Sargoth]

Originally posted by Sargoth
It is absolutely not a contact on body image. All images of bodies wrapped with cloth show the globe effect which looks nothing like the Shroud of Turin. It is not painted. It is a photograph using camera obscura techniques, DaVinci had info. in his notebooks on it. It explains all the anomalies. Head too small, arms and fingers too long etc. The cloth may be very old, even 1st century but that doesn't determine when the image was placed on the linen. Also the image is of a man who is not DEAD. CORPSES DON'T BLEED!!!

That's my summary analysis as well.

People don't understand the the Shroud's historical context. Artifacts from the time of JC were a thriving cottage industry the Middle Ages into the Renaissance. Slivers taken from the True Cross, bones of Saints, and all sorts of gruesome body parts and itens mentioned in the New Testament were sold for big money. Cloth remnants were a thriving sub-industry. Soup spoons from The Last Supper were probably a hot selling item.

We know pretty much where and when the Turin Shroud was produced. It appears in the 14th Century I think. There are mentions of earlier ones but the descriptions don't match in any way.

Finding blood traces and pollen from the Middle East are the most recent attempts to authenticate it. As if it hasn't been handled by people from all over Europe and the Middle East for hundreds of years.

A fake from an era when these kind of things were sold like autographed baseballs are today. The FBI found 75% of those are fakes too.

Mike

Originally posted by Al Davison
I fully believe in the Shroud of Turin - it's a shroud and it is (usually) in Turin. I don't believe any of the rest of the stories about it, though.

"I fully believe"
"I don't believe."

Say what?

That was a good special but they still seem to play dumb about it being a photograph. No contact image looks anything like the shroud. It is a negative image, has anomalies of a photograph, and looks just like Da Vinci. The blood stains are the most confusing part of it. Maybe DA Vinci mixed real blood with paint and painted it on. The carbon dating was most likely skewed on purpose with the mixed new and original fibers. The church wanted to distance itself because the shroud shows a man who is still alive. Corpses don't continue to bleed. That other face cloth called the Sudarium was much more likely to be genuine. They should compare that blood to the blood Ron Wyatt found on the Ark of the Covenant, and compare those to anything found in the tomb in Srinagar Kashmir.