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
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2004 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Now, it seems to me that the Shroud of Turin is the brainchild of Propganda incarnate. I have always been interested why so many choose to believe, but eventualy let go, and realized that Faith cannot be obliged.

www.shroud.com...




The Shroud of Turin is a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man. A man that millions believe to be Jesus of Nazareth. Is it really the cloth that wrapped his crucified body, or is it simply a medieval forgery, a hoax perpetrated by some clever artist? Modern science has completed hundreds of thousands of hours of detailed study and intense research on the Shroud. It is, in fact, the single most studied artifact in human history, and we know more about it today than we ever have before. And yet, the controversy still rages. This web site will keep you abreast of current research, provide you with accurate data from the previous research and let you interact with the researchers themselves. We believe that if you have access to the facts, you can make up your own mind about the Shroud. Make sure you visit the page where you can Examine the Shroud of Turin for yourself. We hope you enjoy your visit.





www.mcri.org...




According to Dr. Walter McCrone and his colleagues at McCrone Associates, the 3+ by 14+ foot cloth depicting Christ's crucified body is an inspired painting produced by a Medieval artist just before its first appearance in recorded history in 1356. The faint sepia image is made up of billions of submicron pigment particles (red ochre and vermilion) in a collagen tempera medium. Dr. McCrone determined this by polarized light microscopy in 1979. This included careful inspection of thousands of linen fibers from 32 different areas (Shroud and sample points), characterization of the only colored image-forming particles by color, refractive indices, polarized light microscopy, size, shape, and microchemical tests for iron, mercury, and body fluids. The paint pigments were dispersed in a collagen tempera (produced in medieval times, perhaps, from parchment). It is chemically distinctly different in composition from blood but readily detected and identified microscopically by microchemical staining reactions. Forensic tests for blood were uniformly negative on fibers from the blood-image tapes.


sindone.torino.chiesacattolica.it...
skepdic.com...
www.shroudstory.com...
www.manintheshroud.org...

www.historian.net...




No single artifact of the past has so exemplified the interface between science and religion as the Shroud of Turin. What are the facts and how do we separate the facts from both religious and scientific bias and agenda-based conclusions? First, we must separate the shroud from that which is responsible for bias, namely that it is the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth and investigate it instead as a putative artifact of a first century crucifixion and burial. The shroud has been subjected to numerous scientific tests over the years culminating in 1988 with a radiocarbon measurement and dating procedure. The testing of the shroud and the conclusions reached lie basically in two areas, the physical shroud itself and the very unique image on the shroud.


Now who all believe the shroud to be ligitmate?
Personaly the figure depicted in the Figure is the mainstream image of " Jesus ".

dsc.discovery.com...#

Discovery Channel had an amazing series, depicting what jesus should have looked like 2000 years ago.

Now you be the judge.




Deep




posted on Feb, 9 2004 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Deep,

what's your point? is this a thinly veiled attack on christianity?

who the hell knows what Christ looked like?

even if someone does know why is it considered objective when talking about the shroud?

frankly I have no idea who the shroud represents but I do know one thing that carbon dating methods are not that accurate and that is the real point here.

nobody really knows how old the shroud is and as such there is no strong argument for or against it at this time.



posted on Feb, 9 2004 @ 05:26 PM
link   
This is not an attack on Christians. Where do you pick this up?

This is simply an attack on false information. Im curious of people Buy the " Shroud of Turin " story. I'm asking for member opinion on the subject, not to collectivly articulate together and bash christianity.

Deep



posted on Feb, 9 2004 @ 05:44 PM
link   
I thought the shroud had something to do with Jacques De Morlay.

Despite Christian researchers claims,there is no evidence that the shroud existed before it was first put on display in 1357.The cloth type is a herringbone twill weave that came into use in europe in the 14th centuary,its not impossible that this type of cloth was woven in the 1st centuary,but its extremly unlikely that it was.Even pollen samples taken from the shroud has been proven not to be from olive trees which totally dismisses an origin in the holy land.



posted on Feb, 9 2004 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
This is not an attack on Christians. Where do you pick this up?

This is simply an attack on false information. Im curious of people Buy the " Shroud of Turin " story. I'm asking for member opinion on the subject, not to collectivly articulate together and bash christianity.

Deep

I'm curious of the "Buy the Bible" story.



posted on Feb, 9 2004 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Yes all true real deal but you also know the following:

chapel that shroud was in was on fire many hundreds of years ago and due to fire the shroud was repaired in one area. the area of the repair has been rumoured as the area that cloth samples were taken from to provide to scientists? true I don't know but that is one of the twisting stories I have heard about the shroud.



posted on Feb, 9 2004 @ 05:58 PM
link   
TheNeo now that would be convienant wouldn't it.

The samples that were tested who even knows if they were in fact actual linen taken from the shroud.They were sent by the vatican would you believe that they sent proper samples.

The 3 labs that tested these samples under the watchful eye of the british museum all came to the same conclusion that it was medieval.



posted on Feb, 10 2004 @ 06:19 PM
link   
It's a hoax. A lie. Look in the scripture what it says about the white linen. It is refered to in plural form and this custom is even given with another example, Lazarus. When Simeon Kefas enters the opened tomb, he finds the linen cloths with pressure on the s there. Plural. They had one piece of linen for the body itself, then another around both arms and hands, feet, legs and head. To give the last oil was and some place I'm sure to day a tradition with ancient roots. Like a last rite somehow. Remember btw. that Miriam of Bethany (Mary Magdalen) had this honor naturally. Nobody argued that it was Miriam of Bethany. She wasn't chosen, she just did it, as if it was her job or duty to do it. As his wife? This is one of the best proofs I have that Jesjuah was married.

The dude on the Turin shroud even has two horns. As far as I know Jesjuah was a horn. He didn't have horns. A horn of salvation. And the whole thing just looks very painted. A body moves even after death, and there would have been far more wrinkles. And I think they found that the person is painted with ocre I heared.

I believe there is a family somewhere with a funny story from really old times, when their g g g g g g g great grandfather forged the bodywrap of Jesjuah and sold it to the stupid French, who again sold it to the even stupider Romans


Woops, and did I mention that this piece of forged cloth is the model for all the abominable Roman idols of "Jesus"? How would you feel if you came back and all they did was to shove you away because you didn't look like on the picture.....

As for the last picture? No not like that either. Try to think about what king Solomon must have looked like, David, Isai. Jesjuah was of royal descent. Whether he was a big strong timber-man or a tall and slim teacher, the wise exchange disputes. The word naggar can mean both carpenter and teacher. I guess it was important for the Romans to have a reason why Jesjuah had a house in John 1. For he couldn't be married somehow. That would ruin all of it for them it seems. Why?

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 10-2-2004 by Hamilton]



posted on Feb, 10 2004 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Here is a good site that supports the ideas behind the shrine, most so called 'official' sites debunk it completely but do not attempt to answer the questions answered at this link. The biggest question is not how old it is but how was the image formed in the fabric?

www.historian.net...



posted on Feb, 10 2004 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO
www.historian.net...

From the site:


1. The forger first painted the bloodstains before he painted the image.

2. The forger integrated forensic qualities to his image that would only be known 20th century science.

3. The forger duplicated blood flow patterns in perfect forensic agreement to blood flow from the wrists at 65 from vertical to suggest the exact crucifixion position of the arms.

4. The forger "painted" the blood flows with genuine group AB blood that he had "spiked" with excessive amounts of bilirubin since the forger knew that severe concussive scourging with a Roman flagrum would cause erythrocyte hemolysis and jaundice.

5. The forger "plotted" the scourge marks on the body of the "man in the shroud" to be consistent under forensic examination with two scourgers of varying height.

6. The forger also duplicated abrasion and compression marks on the scourge wounds of the shoulders to suggest to 20th century forensic examiners that the "man in the shroud" had carried a heavy weight following the scourging.

7. The forger, against all convention of medieval artistry, painted the body he was "hoaxing" as Jesus of Nazareth, nude to conform to genuine Roman crucifixions.

8. The forger, as the forensic genius he was, illustrated the nails of crucifixion accurately through the wrists rather than the hands as in all other conventional medieval representations. He also took into account that the thumbs of a crucified victim would rotate inward as a result of median nerve damage as the nails passed through the spaces of Destot.

9. The forger was clever enough to "salt" the linen with the pollens of plants indigenous only to the environs of Jerusalem in anticipation of 20th century palynological analysis.

10. The forger was an artist who surpassed the talents of all known artists to the present day, being able to "paint" an anatomically and photographically perfect human image in a photographic negative manner, centuries before photography, and be able to do so without being able to check his work, close up, as he progressed.

11. The forger was able to paint this image with some unknown medium using an unknown technique, 30-40 feet away in order to discern the shadowy image as he continued.

12. The forger was clever enough to depict an adult with an unplaited pony-tail, sidelocks and a beard style consistent with a Jewish male of the 1st century.

13. The forger thought of such minute details as incorporating dirt from the bare feet of the "man in the shroud" consistent with the calcium carbonate soil of the environs of Jerusalem.

14. This forger was such an expert in 20th century biochemistry, medicine, forensic pathology and anatomy, botany, photography and 3-D computer analysis that he has foiled all the efforts of modern science. His unknown and historically unduplicated artistic technique surpasses all great historical artists, making the pale efforts of DaVinci, Michaelangelo, Raphael and Botticelli appear as infantile scribblings.

If the Shroud of Turin is a forgery of the 14th century, as the radiocarbonists claim, and not a genuine artifact of the 1st century, all of these qualities of the purported medieval "forger" must be accepted. If the Shroud was "forged" it would have to have been painted.

It is an irrefutable fact that there is NO paint or pigment on the Shroud of Turin leaving the only explanation of the technique of the forger to have used "photography" to manufacture the relic in the THIRTEENTH CENTURY!! Some authors have gone so far as to suggest exactly that. This is patently absurd!



Hmmm..... Image of the beast? That was even made living and given the ability to talk, but was still an image? Isn't it Mel Gibson who has this thing running these days?

Blessings,
Mikromarius



posted on Feb, 10 2004 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Or what if this is infact a real shroud which has contained a person who has suffered the same death? About 100 years ago? Makes me think about how long this has been rolling. And who is behind it, and what their plans are for the future. Which doesn't exist....

Blessings,
Mikromarius



posted on Feb, 10 2004 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hamilton
Or what if this is infact a real shroud which has contained a person who has suffered the same death?
Blessings,
Mikromarius


Try Jacques De Morlay see what you find.



posted on Feb, 10 2004 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Q: (L) I would like to know if the Shroud of Turin was ever wrapped around Jesus.
A: No.
Q: (L) Was it wrapped around somebody who was crucified?
A: No.
Q: (L) How was it made?
A: Wrapped around Roman worker.
Q: (L) What caused the image on the shroud?
A: Body oils, hormones and other physiological chemicals.
========================================

But otherwise I have no idea.



posted on Feb, 10 2004 @ 09:15 PM
link   
The constant prompts of christianity are getting tired.
Anybody who reads knows that the christ never died on the cross. Anybody who knows anything about history knows that the supposed son of god wasn't the only person crucified[as you would like to be told]. Thousands of people were crucified and hundreds survived including jesus.There are many writings of jesus found after his crucifiction.
Its like the noahs ark story, Just because a boat is found,why does it have to be noahs ark. Why cant it be the original boat the priests stole the story from.
Just because a cloth covering some dead guy turns up,why does it all of a sudden have to be jesus. The records show jesus traveled to india after his survival on the cross. Just like a lot of other people back then.
Maybe the cloth was that of his lover or even better yet maybe just some poor alterboy.
Maybe its just a piece of cloth? Freaks.



posted on Feb, 10 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ashley
The constant prompts of christianity are getting tired.
Anybody who reads knows that the christ never died on the cross. Anybody who knows anything about history knows that the supposed son of god wasn't the only person crucified[as you would like to be told]. Thousands of people were crucified and hundreds survived including jesus.There are many writings of jesus found after his crucifiction.
Its like the noahs ark story, Just because a boat is found,why does it have to be noahs ark. Why cant it be the original boat the priests stole the story from.
Just because a cloth covering some dead guy turns up,why does it all of a sudden have to be jesus. The records show jesus traveled to india after his survival on the cross. Just like a lot of other people back then.
Maybe the cloth was that of his lover or even better yet maybe just some poor alterboy.
Maybe its just a piece of cloth? Freaks.


But Jesus was never crucified... not even to survive it. Simply never happened. It's a lie to control and create mental slaves (Christians) etc as are all the other religions. It's a form of control, and is absolutely obvious if you open your eyes.

Now let's say it did happen, the lie then comes in and says "he died for your sins, you sinful bastards". Makes you feel guilty etc...

[Edited on 10-2-2004 by lilblam]



posted on Feb, 10 2004 @ 09:42 PM
link   
why do you say that? I had always thought that he was crucified like many others but just survived and escaped like many others.
I do know the whole crucifiction story is a joke so dont get to elementary,but why do you say the whole crucifiction of jesus never happened? I never heard that one before,but i dont doubt it.



posted on Feb, 10 2004 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ashley
why do you say that? I had always thought that he was crucified like many others but just survived and escaped like many others.
I do know the whole crucifiction story is a joke so dont get to elementary,but why do you say the whole crucifiction of jesus never happened? I never heard that one before,but i dont doubt it.


Well first, didn't they burn people in that period of time etc instead of crucifixion? Bible can't serve as evidence for anything... neither can the "Cinderalla" story. Morals shmorals, there's not a shred of evidence of the book being "true". One is forced to rely on other sources that may suggest that parts of the Bible may be false, and one of those sources is your mind. Careful examination of the book (as we all undoubtedly know) points to glaring contradictions, among other things. Even the "morals" or lessons it tries to teach contradict each other. First God says "thou shalt not kill" then he commands people to kill, then changes his mind again... he's so indecisive!



posted on Feb, 10 2004 @ 10:10 PM
link   
real deal has something during the inquisition and the fall of the knights templar jacque molay was tortured and crucified for a brief time upon a doorway this would produce the traumatic conditions required for the bodily excretion to imprint upon the shroud (runners get this condition often from working out hard and their body literally fumes) jacque molay was wrapped in a shroud of some sort after his torture while he recovered because of the distortions in the image it indicates that the figure was lying on a soft bed not a stone slab also the shroud was first displayed by a close descendent of molay's closest friend and fellow templar they were burned alive together 2 years later today noone but uninformed christians still believe it was christ's shroud but the evidence for jacque molay is the best i've heard by far



posted on Feb, 10 2004 @ 10:33 PM
link   
iiblam sorry to ask again but i know the bible is full of contradictions,but what do you expect it was written for primitives.
I am curious about what you said that jesus [the magician] was never crucified though. Why not,they crucified lots back then.
Thats interesting,we know he survived a crucifiction but i never heard he never went through one.



posted on Feb, 10 2004 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Lilblam,

During those times only Slaves and prisoners were Cruicfied..........................

Deep



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join