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.

 

The Shroud of Turin...confirmed as fake

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   


A French magazine claims it had carried out experiments that proved the Shroud of Turin is a fake.


"A medieval technique helped us to make a Shroud," Science & Vie (Science and Life) said in its July issue.


Many believe the shroud to be the sacred wrappings of Jesus Christ after he was crucified. Many of the "wounds" on the body see to match the story of how Christ was hurt...crown of thorns, spear in the side, and holes in the hands and feet.



Drawing on a method previously used by sceptics to attack authenticity claims about the Shroud, the magazine got an artist to do a bas-relief - a sculpture that stands out from the surrounding background - of a Christ-like face.
Advertisement:

A scientist then laid out a damp linen sheet over the bas-relief and let it dry, so that the thin cloth was moulded onto the face.

Using cotton wool, he then carefully dabbed ferric oxide, mixed with gelatine, onto the cloth to make blood-like marks. When the cloth was turned inside-out, the reversed marks resulted in the famous image of the crucified Christ.
News.com.au


Some also believe that Leonardo DaVinci created the shroud for some reason, but the questions remain. Is it a hoax or conspiracy of a grand scale?

Other Related Links:
News24.com
Livescience.com




posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Of course its a hoax. This has been the truth for many years. The person who made the Shroud is a mystery, as is the reason for its very existance.

Most of the theories point to Da Vinci. It is rumored that he created the Shroud to give the Church something to worship; in direct violation of Gods law.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 05:27 AM
link   
Many experiments have proved that by direct contact with the human body the same pattern as is on the shroud CANNOT be reproduced. The definition of the facial and coroporal features is blurred when the cloth is placed in direct contact with the subject matter.

Also there is NO pigment, or dye of any sort in the cloth.

The outline of the corpse is only on the UNDERSIDE of the shroud and not on the upper surface.The impregnation of the form on the cloth is not 100%, whatever caused the impression did it from underneath the cloth and not from above.(IE PAINTING) Whatever caused the outlines is not present on the surface of the shroud.

The angle of the direction of blood is INCONSISTENT with a man crucified in the traditional roman manner.

I suggest you read my earlier thread - JAQUES DE MOLAY THE FACE IN THE SHROUD.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 05:50 AM
link   
I'm sorry, this is the dumbest thing I've ever read. They used a fake body and fake blood to make a fake shroud... that only confirms that the original was probably made by a real body with real blood.

What about fiber tests and electron scanning microscopes and chemical assays...? No? Just slap some paint on a bedsheet to prove it's a fake?


I don't think it's real either, but come on..



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

"A medieval technique helped us to make a Shroud," Science & Vie (Science and Life) said in its July issue.



Yeah, so what? They made some shroud art.

The pollen on the shroud comes from the area where Christ lived.
There are imprints of flowers around the body - a burial custom.
The imprints of the coins over the eye and one coin slipping off the eye,
which I believe are 'dated' with Ceaser on them.
The RU dating was flawed, they took a sample from the part of the
shroud that had been repaired after the fire. Original fibers were not
taken.
www.shroudstory.com...

There are sooooooooo many more facts that support the shroud as
being authentic. yet people continue to want to debunk it. Hey
kiddos ... it very well could be real and the Catholic church has it in
one of it's Cathedrals. Deal ...


(I'm surprised a 'supermod' would post a laughable story and say it's
'confirmation' about the shroud. Is everything alright up there in
Mod-Land? )

[edit on 7/1/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Zed:

This doesnt prove that it was fake, it proves that someone could replicate the exact same process that created the shroud using synthetic material.

That's like saying...hearts are fake because a scientist created an 'artifical heart'.

The title is very misleading.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

"A medieval technique helped us to make a Shroud," Science & Vie (Science and Life) said in its July issue.



Yeah, so what? They made some shroud art.


I'm thinking that was what the original shroud was used as. Perhaps the makers and all the brothers and sisters of the era knew it was and admired the work but somehow the info got lost or rumored that it was the actual shroud. I'm certainly willing to be wrong here.



The pollen on the shroud comes from the area where Christ lived.
There are imprints of flowers around the body - a burial custom.
The imprints of the coins over the eye and one coin slipping off the eye,
which I believe are 'dated' with Ceaser on them.
The RU dating was flawed, they took a sample from the part of the
shroud that had been repaired after the fire. Original fibers were not
taken.
www.shroudstory.com...

There are sooooooooo many more facts that support the shroud as
being authentic. yet people continue to want to debunk it. Hey
kiddos ... it very well could be real and the Catholic church has it in
one of it's Cathedrals. Deal ...


(I'm surprised a 'supermod' would post a laughable story and say it's
'confirmation' about the shroud. Is everything alright up there in
Mod-Land? )

[edit on 7/1/2005 by FlyersFan]



From www.shroudstory.com...
Chemists and art scholars have ruled out the possibility that the Shroud of Turin is a painting or any other known form of art, including photography. MORE ON IT NOT BEING A WORK OF ART


Hey look! I'm wrong...and couldn't be more pleased. There's more detail on the link "MORE ON IT NOT BEING A WORK OF ART"

I need to read this site more. Be back later. Thanks flyersfan



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
www.shroudstory.com...


Wow. Just fraekin' wow! You got my vote for 'way above' this month... and made me wonder if Ishould go back to college for a different major.


I need to study this more. More study! More info!

Too bad none of this will help people who don't believe he was the son of God anyway...

[edit on 1-7-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Well St. ... It really doesn't matter to me if it is or if it isn't authentic.
I'm not on a mission to prove it to be real. Just passing along some
SCIENCE. Interesting stuff eh? The pollen REALLY is interesting, as
are the flower imprints. Glad to have made your day a bit more
interesting.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Many false relics were manufactured in the holy lands as crusaders coming home could certainly lend to the authenticity of the items. Indeed, many of the returning soldiers were likely duped by charlatans. So the pollen issue isn't really that impressive.

The middle ages, (the time the shroud was dated to, regardless of accepting the fire idea or not), was RIFE with such forgeries, from saint's bones to pieces of the "true" cross, etc.

The bottom line, is that if you place a shroud over a body, it will distort and stretch the impression left, and it will look NOTHING like the shroud of Turin. They've tried this numerous times. The shroud was more likely produced with a process more akin to a rubbing of a bas-relief, but with the "blood" mixture applied to the bas-relief (not the cloth), the same way one would do a print (which seems where they went wrong with their re-creation). In fact, I'd wager that many such shrouds were produced in the same way, and sold unscrupulously to Crusaders.

The other issue is that the image of Jesus we see in art, etc. is likely nothing like the man. The bearded, caucasian Christ, is actually an image of King James, not Jesus, and it's far more likely Jesus had far different features, as he was a Jew of the region.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Many false relics were manufactured in the holy lands as crusaders coming home could certainly lend to the authenticity of the items. Indeed, many of the returning soldiers were likely duped by charlatans. So the pollen issue isn't really that impressive..


This facet of the Holy land has not changed in over 2000 years either. In Egypt or Isreal, you will be approached over and over with people selling 'real" artifacts and religious items.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Many false relics were manufactured in the holy lands as crusaders coming home could certainly lend to the authenticity of the items. Indeed, many of the returning soldiers were likely duped by charlatans. So the pollen issue isn't really that impressive.

The middle ages, (the time the shroud was dated to, regardless of accepting the fire idea or not), was RIFE with such forgeries, from saint's bones to pieces of the "true" cross, etc.

The bottom line, is that if you place a shroud over a body, it will distort and stretch the impression left, and it will look NOTHING like the shroud of Turin. They've tried this numerous times. The shroud was more likely produced with a process more akin to a rubbing of a bas-relief, but with the "blood" mixture applied to the bas-relief (not the cloth), the same way one would do a print (which seems where they went wrong with their re-creation). In fact, I'd wager that many such shrouds were produced in the same way, and sold unscrupulously to Crusaders.

The other issue is that the image of Jesus we see in art, etc. is likely nothing like the man. The bearded, caucasian Christ, is actually an image of King James, not Jesus, and it's far more likely Jesus had far different features, as he was a Jew of the region.


...this really doesn't address any of the points brought up in the website flyersfan pointed out. Consider me one who can be persuaded by the preponderance of the evidence. I hadn't mentioned before, but I'm a fan of your quick & candid debunkings of ufo's and mythical creatures. Just wanted to let you know that I appreciate ya, but this excuse-like answer seems atypical of your posts. Also, what about the shroud makes him caucasian? My background apparently doesn't give me enough information to make that distinction. Can you give some detail on the 'stretching' effect?



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   


...this really doesn't address any of the points brought up in the website flyersfan pointed out.


Very well. Shall we begin?



This supports a hypothesis that the Shroud of Turin's images are the result of a very natural, complex chemical reaction between amines (ammonia derivatives) emerging from a body and saccharides within a carbohydrate residue that covers the fibers of the Shroud of Turin. The color producing chemical process is called a Maillard reaction. This is fully discussed in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, Melanoidins, a journal of the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (EU, Volume 4, 2003).


I’m not disputing that there is indeed blood on the shroud, and that chemical processes acted on the blood (or other organic matter, such as the basis for tempura paints), etc. The above only supports the existence of blood, not that it is the blood of Christ.



By some estimates, as much as 60 percent of the Shroud of Turin sample was new thread, the result of mending in the 16th century. This is sufficient to change the date of a 1st century shroud to the medieval date range arrived at by the carbon 14 dating.

It is quite possible that the Shroud of Turin is a genuine first century burial cloth of a crucifixion victim.


It is equally possible that no such mending took place, and that the hypothesis is weak at best. All tests that I am aware of (and of different samples taken at different times and places of the shroud) point to a medieval origin.



Chiaroscuro in art is an illusion. It is one of many techniques that the artist uses to give a sense of dimensionality and depth to a picture. But computerized image analysis of the images on the Shroud of Turin indicates that what we perceive as the play of light in the images is not and cannot be light. The illusion is an illusion of an illusion. And it does not make sense.


It makes perfect sense, if it is a rubbing from a treated bas-relief. A simple pencil rubbing of a coin will show this.

Even this way…
dsc.discovery.com...



Can you give some detail on the 'stretching' effect?


Sure. This was done in a recent documentary, where scientists had coated a body with dyes, etc. and then carefully wrapped it with a shroud. The resulting image was stretched (as it would be for a three dimensional body). You can easily do this yourself, by taking a baby doll, applying a light coating of paint, and then wrapping in a cloth. You’ll see the resulting stretching of the face, body, etc. as the fabric curves over the body. The image on the shroud (despite it’s lights and darks) is very two dimensional, and could NOT have been produced in the manner assumed by theologians. It IS however, extremely consistent with the way a rubbing of a bas-relief would appear.

Here are even more reasons…



* The shroud contradicts the Gospel of John, which describes multiple cloths (including a separate "napkin" over the face), as well as "an hundred pound weight" of burial spices--not a trace of which appears on the cloth.

* No examples of the shroud linen's complex herringbone twill weave date from the first century, when burial cloths tended to be of plain weave in any case.

* The shroud has no known history prior to the mid-fourteenth century, when it turned up in the possession of a man who never explained how he had obtained the most holy relic in Christendom.

* The earliest written record of the shroud is a bishop's report to Pope Clement VII, dated 1389, stating that it originated as part of a faith-healing scheme, with "pretended miracles" being staged to defraud credulous pilgrims.

* The bishop's report also stated that a predecessor had "discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it" (emphasis added).

* Although, as St. Augustine lamented in the fourth century, Jesus' appearance was completely unknown, the shroud image follows the conventional artistic likeness.

* The physique is unnaturally elongated (like figures in Gothic art), and dime is a lack of wraparound distortions that would be expected if the cloth had enclosed an actual three-dimensional object like a human body. The hair hangs as for a standing, rather than reclining figure, and the imprint of a bloody foot is incompatible with the outstretched leg to which it belongs.

* The alleged blood stains are unnaturally picture-like. Instead of matting the hair, for instance, they run in rivulets on the outside of the locks. Also, dried "blood" (as on the arms) has been implausibly transferred to the cloth. The blood remains bright red, unlike genuine blood that blackens with age.

* In 1973, internationally known forensic serologists subjected the "blood" to a battery of tests--for chemical properties, species, blood grouping, etc. The substance lacked the properties of blood, instead containing suspicious, reddish granules.

* Subsequently, the distinguished microanalyst Walter McCrone identified the "blood" as red ocher and vermilion tempera paint and concluded that the entire image had been painted.

* In 1988, the shroud cloth was radiocarbon dated by three different laboratories (at Zurich, Oxford, and the University of Arizona). The results were in close agreement and yield a date range of A.D. 1260-1390, about die time of the reported forger's confession (ca. A.D. 1355).

Defenders of the shroud's authenticity have rationalizations for each damning piece of evidence. For example, they assert that microbial contamination might have altered the radiocarbon date, although for an error of thirteen centuries, there would have to be twice as much contamination by weight as the cloth itself! Beginning with the desired answer, they work backward to the evidence, picking and choosing and--all too often--engaging in pseudoscience.

In contrast, the scientific approach allows the preponderance of evidence to lead to a conclusion: the shroud is the work of a medieval artisan. The various pieces of the puzzle effectively interlock and corroborate each other. In the words of Catholic historian Ulysse Chevalier, who brought to light the documentary evidence of the Shroud's medieval origin, "The history of the shroud constitutes a protracted violation of the two virtues so often commended by our holy books, justice and truth."


www.findarticles.com...





[edit on 1-7-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Now that's the Gazrok I know.
I like the avatar too


The problem is that appearently these two sources haven't read much of each other's works...except the link flyersfan provided does seem to address the 'artist' theory per my misconception above and that the 1988 radiocarbon dating is inaccurate and why.

Much appreciate your work, but there is a nice bibliography of living people who are actually working on the shroud scientifically at www.shroudstory.com... instead of tossing theory about.

I think the reason why this is such a 'hot-topic' is if it proves to be fake, nobody really cares and it proves nothing other than people like to fake stuff, but if it proves to be real, it's a point against anti-Christians who are still searching for debunkable information to shake a Christian conscious. I say put down the cloth and talk to God. That's how you get your proof of the Jesus story. God didn't infuse all of himself into a cloth, book, or any other dead material. He's alive right now so there's no need to dust for fingerprints.


[edit on 1-7-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   
That's a good point, and one I'll agree with.

The shroud being a fake, wouldn't disprove the account of Christ or the Crucifixion, etc. (and this is coming from an agnostic).

Just because I happen not to acknowledge a God, doesn't make me feel threatened by such things though. The simple fact for me, is that short of a divine miracle, there's no way one could wrap a body in such a way as to appear how it does on the shroud, but it certainly resembles a bas-relief rubbing using chemical agents of the day.



nice bibliography of living people who are actually working on the shroud scientifically


True, but in addition to theory, we're throwing in known facts also, such as many of the points I cited. Also, one has to ask about the personal bias of such scientists as well. This is just one of those things likely to never be fully known one way or the other.

As you said though, for the faithful, such proof isn't required. I can fully respect your beliefs, even if I don't agree with them.


[edit on 1-7-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Just because I happen not to acknowledge a God, doesn't make me feel threatened by such things though.


I also don't believe you qualify as an anti-Christian either per your statement here:


Originally posted by Gazrok
The shroud being a fake, wouldn't disprove the account of Christ or the Crucifixion, etc. (and this is coming from an agnostic).


since I said "but if it proves to be real, it's a point against anti-Christians who are still searching for debunkable information to shake a Christian conscious". On the topic, I guess you could call me 'indifferent' as well since I keep reinforcing that it doesn't matter and won't make anyone believe.


Originally posted by Gazrok
The simple fact for me, is that short of a divine miracle, there's no way one could wrap a body in such a way as to appear how it does on the shroud, but it certainly resembles a bas-relief rubbing using chemical agents of the day.


I think some photographic comparisons would help the general public in this one. Ooh! I know! Let's come over your house and try to replicate! I'd offer mine but it's a bit small I think.


Originally posted by Gazrok
True, but in addition to theory, we're throwing in known facts also, such as many of the points I cited. Also, one has to ask about the personal bias of such scientists as well. This is just one of those things likely to never be fully known one way or the other.


Well, one interesting thing to note were a few statements they claim to abide by:



Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant and Evangelical Christians—both conservative and liberal—are beginning to realize that there is something not easily understood about the Shroud of Turin.


So it doesn't sound like it's being run by a church.



Science cannot rule out a miracle but it can and does rule out fakery.


This one gives me chills as a student and fan of science.



As you said though, for the faithful, such proof isn't required. I can fully respect your beliefs, even if I don't agree with them.



Why thank you, the feeling is mutual. It's nice to know not all ATS religious discussions have to turn into emotional bouts of pride, fear, anger and resentment. Feelin' the love & right back atcha



[edit on 1-7-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
* The shroud contradicts the Gospel of John, which describes multiple cloths (including a separate "napkin" over the face), as well as "an hundred pound weight" of burial spices--not a trace of which appears on the cloth.

The cloth was wrapped around the head. This could be inside or outside
the shroud. If outside, it would not have interrupted the image.


The hair hangs as for a standing, rather than reclining figure

Actually, this makes sense. Christ died upright. The blood flowed and
dried while he was upright. Even the blood in his hair. I have no doubt
that it should hang as standing.


The blood remains bright red, unlike genuine blood that blackens with age.

There are many eucharistic miracles where this happens. The blood of
Lanciato Italy changes and flows red every year. This runs into the miraculous instead of the science areas.


the distinguished microanalyst Walter McCrone identified the "blood" as red ocher and vermilion tempera paint and concluded that the entire image had been painted.

Then he was wrong. www.shroudstory.com...




posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Gazrok

the distinguished microanalyst Walter McCrone identified the "blood" as red ocher and vermilion tempera paint and concluded that the entire image had been painted.

Then he was wrong. www.shroudstory.com...



Oooh, snap!
And the data to back it up!



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
as well as "an hundred pound weight" of burial spices--
not a trace of which appears on the cloth.


Good. It shouldn't. Read the scriptures carefully. You will see that the
Christ died at the 9th hour (3pm). Joseph of Aramathia went to request
the body. The body was taken down and quickly laid in the tomb due
to the fact that it was the evening of the Sabbath and no one was
to 'work', which included applying spices to the dead. The burial was
hasty. The spices were then prepared AFTER burial to be put on the
body after the Sabbath. That's what Mary Magdalene was going to the
tomb to do.

Matthew 27: 57-61 When it was evening, there came a rich man from
Arimathea named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus. He went to
Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given
to him. And Joseph took the body, and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud,
and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock; and rolled
a great stone to the door of the tomb, and departed. Mary Magdalene
and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the sepulchre.

Matthew 27: 28 - Now after the sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day
of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the
Sepulchre.

Mark 15: 42 - 47 And when evening had come, since it was the day of
Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a
respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the
kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body
of Jesus. And Pilate wondered if he were already dead: and summoning
the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead. And when he
learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to
Joseph. And he brought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped
him in the linen shroud, and laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out
of the rock; and rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. Mary
Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.

Mark 16 1-2 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary
the mother of James, and Salome, brought spices, so that they might go
and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week they went to
the tomb when the sun had risen.

Luke 23: 50-54 - Now there was a man named Joseph from the Jewish
town of Arimathea. He wa a member of the council, a good and righteous
man, who had not consented to their purpose and deed, and he was
looking for the kingdom of God. This man went to Pilate and asked for the
body of Jesus. Then he took it down and wrapped it in a linen shroud,
and laid him in a rock hewn tomb, where no one had ever yet been laid. It
was the day of Preparation, and the sabbath was beginning. The women
who had come with him from galilee followed, and saw the tomb, and how
his body was laid; then they returned and prepared spices and
ointments. On the sabbath they rested according to the commandment.


Luke 24: 1- But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to
the tomb, taking the spices which they had prepared.

The only slightly different version is this - that Joseph had spices ready and
that Christ was buried with them. However, if read in all together in
context, it would have been impossible for Joseph of Aramathea to have
embalmed Christ's body in any manner. It was already getting dark and
they were not allowed to work on Christ's body after dark. He had a hasty
burial as you can see by this (and the others) ... hasty due to darkness
and the Sabbath. There wasn't time to apply the spices Joseph had
prepared. Also, the women had spices that the prepared later. If Joseph
had applied his spices then the women wouldn't have been bothering
making more over the weekend just to apply yet again after the sabbath.

John 18: 38- After this Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus,
but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the
body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him leave. So he came and took away his
body. Nicodemus also, who had at first come to him by night, came
bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds' weight.
They took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths with the spices,
as is the burial custom of the Jews. Now in the place where he was
crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb where no one
had ever been laid. So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, and the
tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there. No preparation.


[edit on 7/1/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Ah good note on that aspect...


(with the spices).

Though hardly the only instance where the various apostles disagree on the details. Still, I think your assertion of the spices not yet being applied, is the most logical conclusion from the scriptures presented...bad form on part of the skeptic's site that point came from, hehe...and good job shooting it down...




I think some photographic comparisons would help the general public in this one. Ooh! I know! Let's come over your house and try to replicate! I'd offer mine but it's a bit small I think.


Hehe, or if I could just see that damned documentary again. It was really well done, and they showed you exactly what kind of impression a bloody body would leave on a cloth wrapped around it. Nowadays, I make it more of a point to remember such titles, etc., but not so a few years back. In fact, I believe this was just one in a bunch of Turin specials that aired then, close to easter, a few years ago.

Both the skeptics, and the believers seem to thrive more on what they "don't tell" about the evidence. There seem to be points both for and against. For myself though, those "against" just seem to win out logically.

[edit on 1-7-2005 by Gazrok]




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join