The Shroud of Turin – Miracle or Man made?

page: 2
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 


My favourite theory regarding the Shroud of Turin is the Leonardo da Vinci hypothesis.


He was the ultimate Renaissance man - studying anatomy, designing a rudimentary helicopter and creating some of the most admired paintings of the age.

But could Leonardo da Vinci also have perpetrated history's greatest art forgery?

That's the suggestion of one expert, who claims that Leonardo was responsible for faking the Turin Shroud.



Lillian Schwartz, a graphic consultant at the School of Visual Arts in New York, claims that the image is a self-portrait of Leonardo, which was made using a crude photographic technique.

Using computer scans she found that the face on the Turin Shroud and a self portrait of Leonardo da Vinci share the same dimensions.

'It matched. I'm excited about this,' she said. 'There is no doubt in my mind that the proportions that Leonardo wrote about were used in creating this Shroud's face.'

He would have hung the shroud's fabric over a frame in a blacked- out room and coated it with a substance to make it light-sensitive, just like photographic film.

When the sun's rays passed through a lens in one of the walls, Leonardo's 3D model would have been projected on to the material, creating a permanent image.



Shroud researcher Lynn Picknett said: 'It is spooky, it is jaw-dropping.

'The faker of the shroud had to be a heretic. He had to have a grasp of anatomy and he had to have at his fingertips a technology which would completely fool everyone until the 20th century.' - www.dailymail.co.uk...




Also...


Shroud of Turin replicated by Italian scientist using ancient techniques may prove the relic a fake

An Italian scientist says he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin, a feat that he says proves definitively that the linen some Christians revere as Jesus Christ's burial cloth is a medieval fake.

Garlaschelli reproduced the full-sized shroud using materials and techniques that were available in the Middle Ages.


An archive negative image of the Shroud of Turin (l.) is shown next to one recreated by an Italian scientist (r.).

They placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A mask was used for the face.

The pigment was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it, a process which removed it from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud. He believes the pigment on the original Shroud faded naturally over the centuries.

They then added blood stains, burn holes, scorches and water stains to achieve the final effect.


Personally I think this is an open and shut case, the evidence against it being Jesus is enormous. Was it Leonard da Vinci? Possibly. Is it a fake? Definitely.

Another great presentation though mate
A star for effort and a flag because people need to see how it's done.




posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by LiveForever8
 


Yeah, that's a great theory and thanks for posting it but I see one problem in all honesty.....

Leonardo Da Vinci Born - April 15, 1452

(Source)

Shroud of Turin founded - April 10 (or 16), 1349

(Source)

The shroud was actually around before the time of Leonardo thus seemingly debunking the theory of him being the painter of the shroud.

Btw have a look at this post if you can, it could be the actual painting of the shroud and it's worth reading.


This is quite an enlightening link as well.


AllAboutArchaology - Da Vinci & The Shroud of Turin

I personally don't believe the shroud was painted, not that I'm saying it is the buriel cloth of Jesus, but i'd agree it's definitely possible and not to be ruled out.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Rising Against]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   
one thing is for sure and that is that it never really was a shroud of anyone to begin with.

The image depicted can never be that of cloth thaty has been wrapped around a face.It simply would not match with what is shown on the shroud wich is simply a 2 dimensional depiction of a face as a face is seen in 3 dimensions from the front.

This is where the entire question on wether or not the shroud is for real or not should have ended the minute "experts" laid eyes on it imo.


Here is a Face wrap texture to demonstrate how it would have looked if it was real:




The creator of the shroud even went overboard with the detailed,modelled ,shaped and stylized hair seen on the shroud.The entire "artifect" is just one big smoking gun if you ask me.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 06:58 AM
link   
The shroud is fake:

On neither the front image nor the back image is there a view of the sides of the head.

Also there should be more distortion to the image if the shroud was wrapped as it normally is, tied at the neck, waist, knees and ankles.

Shrouds are simply bags of cloth sewn at the sides.

en.wikipedia.org...

They are pulled over the body from the head down and tied as described above. One would expect the image of the Turin Shroud to 'wrap around' from front to back at the top of the head in the center of the shroud, but the front and back are separate as if the body was just slipped into the bag and centered neatly.

All in all, the images are more like front and back snapshots than an image of a body somehow imprinted on the cloth.


[edit on 18-7-2010 by Inediblebulk]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 


There were two shrouds .. this is the second.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rising Against
reply to post by LiveForever8
 


Yeah, that's a great theory and thanks for posting it but I see one problem in all honesty.....

Leonardo Da Vinci Born - April 15, 1452

Shroud of Turin founded - April 10 (or 16), 1349

The shroud was actually around before the time of Leonardo thus seemingly debunking the theory of him being the painter of the shroud.


Ah, yes, that is true. But only if you believe that the one we see before us today was the same one that was put on display in 1355. It was put on display in the church in Lirey, France from 1355–1357. Many pilgrims came to see it and a lot of money was made from it.....



Large crowds of pilgrims visited the church at Lirey to view the Shroud and special souvenir medallions are struck. This is a surviving specimen that may be found at the Cluny Museum in Paris.

Notice the engraving of the Shroud images above the crests.
- www.skepticalspectacle.com...


Then in 1389 Bishop Pierre D’Arcis of Troyes wrote to Pope Clement VII, claiming that the Shroud was a painting and therefore a fake relic, and in his memorandum he referred to the Archbishop Henri de Poitiers, who had supposedly come to the same conclusion some “thirty-four years or thereabouts” previously (i.e., in 1355) and had supposedly conducted an inquest into the Shroud at that time.

So, the theory is that the shroud that the Savoys had ownership of was the Shroud of Lirey (the fake painting). Some time after their purchase of it they became aware that it was a fake and so, to save their reputations, they contracted Leonardo da Vinci to create a more realistic version of the Shroud - which becomes the one we see in existence today.

Therefore the dates are irrelevant.

Now, there are a lot of problems with this theory, but while it may be highly improbable it is not impossible.

As for the picture you highlighted...I'm not sure what your point is


As I have already shown...


Using computer scans she found that the face on the Turin Shroud and a self portrait of Leonardo da Vinci share the same dimensions.


...it is easy to find correlations between the Shrouds dimensions and exterior paintings/pictures/photographs. I don't see how it proves anything, although I may have missed the point.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 


S&F for yet another thought provoking and meticulously researched thread


Unfortunately, the question of proof of its authenticity still remains all elusive, but a fascinating read all the same....

I really don't know on this ????
But guess without that all important definitive proof, the shroud will have to remain a mystery.




[edit on 18-7-2010 by uk today]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rising Against
reply to post by LiveForever8
 


Yeah, that's a great theory and thanks for posting it but I see one problem in all honesty.....

Leonardo Da Vinci Born - April 15, 1452

(Source)

Shroud of Turin founded - April 10 (or 16), 1349

(Source)

The shroud was actually around before the time of Leonardo thus seemingly debunking the theory of him being the painter of the shroud.
How about the theory that it was the shroud of Jacques de Molay, the last Grand Master of the Knights Templar, burned at the stake in 1313?

Geoffrey de Charny was supposedly a Templar, so there would be good reason for his family to have de Molay's death shroud…



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Inediblebulk
reply to post by Rising Against
 


There were two shrouds .. this is the second.


Care to elaborate at least?


[edit on 18-7-2010 by Rising Against]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

As for the picture you highlighted...I'm not sure what your point is


As I have already shown...


Using computer scans she found that the face on the Turin Shroud and a self portrait of Leonardo da Vinci share the same dimensions.


...it is easy to find correlations between the Shrouds dimensions and exterior paintings/pictures/photographs. I don't see how it proves anything, although I may have missed the point.


I'll address the rest of your post in a second but I just wanted to let you know (and I'm assuming it's the post that I linked you to here) I wasn't making any point here, I was just linking you to something that I assumed would interest you as you seemed interested in the shroud being the painting of Leonardo Da Vinci, and that post discusses another painting that was seemingly based on the shroud itself from the 6th Century.

So again, there was no point being made by me there, it was just something that I thought would interest you.


Anyway to your point about the shroud being a painting, possibly by Leornardo Da Vinci......

This may interest/enlighten you.


the image was not painted. Many tests including visible, ultraviolet and infrared light spectrometry, x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, and direct microscopic viewing of the Shroud confirm that the images were not painted despite the fact that Walter McCrone, a noted microscopic analyst found iron oxide and mercuric sulfide, both used in paint pigments.

Nowhere on the Shroud are there sufficient concentrations of paints or dyes to form a visible image. Iron oxide might have formed by retting flax in iron rich water in the production of linen. And just as one finds minuscule particles of iron oxide (rust) in airborne dust, so too might mercuric sulphide be present in dust that settled on the Shroud, once kept in churches and cathedrals with frescoed walls and ceilings. There is another possibility that might well explain the presence of trace amounts of paint particles on the Shroud. Many painted copies of the Shroud were produced. It was, after all, a revered relic. We know from history of a practice whereby artists would touch or rub their paintings on the Shroud for sanctification.

Chemists now know the coloration for the images is superficial at the topmost fiber surfaces of the cloth. The fibers are coated with a thin film of impurities made up mostly of starch. It is in this coating that the image resides. The visible image is the result of a chemical change, in certain places, that results in an observable change of color.

The coating can be physically removed from the fibers with adhesive tape. In fact, flakes of color can be seen where it separated from the fiber and stuck to tape used to collect particulate samples from the Shroud. You can see the thin coat of color through a microscope and it is hard to imagine how an artist could have accomplished this.

The images on the Shroud look ghostlike. They look scorched into the cloth. But chemically they don't resemble scorches. They don't contain the chemical byproducts produced by scorching.

It's possible to imagine that this appearance is what a crafter of fake relics wanted to create; perhaps to portray some imagined idea of what the Resurrection was like. But the reason they look ghostlike is that they are continuous tone negative images. When photographed, the negative of what is already a negative become the extraordinarily photographic like image we commonly see. Could the image on the Shroud, in fact, be a photograph?

Near the end of the fifteenth century, about 130 years after the Shroud's first public exhibition in Europe, Leonardo da Vinci described a camera obscura (a pinhole camera) in his notebooks. Aristotle (384-322 BCE) understood the principle and so did a tenth century Arabian scholar, Alhazen of Basra, who used a tent-sized camera obscura for observing the cosmos. In Alhazen's tent images were projected onto a wall where they could be traced or copied by hand. It wasn't until 1727 when Johann Heinrich Schulze discovered that silver mixed with nitric acid created a photosensitive compound that turned dark when exposed to light. And, it wasn't until 1816 when Nicéphore Niépce used a camera obscura with a sensitized paper to create an image. In 1834, Henry Fox Talbot created the first stable photographic negative on paper soaked in silver chloride.

Had someone, perhaps, invented photography several centuries earlier even though there is no written evidence or samples of photographic experiments or works? Is the Shroud the work of a scientific genius whose accomplishments are lost to history? While some people have opined that it might be, there is ample evidence the Shroud is not a photograph.

When we look at the Shroud we see what looks like a picture. What to our eyes seems like the highlights, lowlights, and cast shadows of reflected light on a human form is not light at all. It is certainly not light as a camera would detect it or an artist would see it and translate it to canvas. Technical image analysis reveals no directionality to the implied light of the highlights and shadows. The brightness does not come from any angle. It is not from above or below, nor from the right or the left, nor from the front. Furthermore, if the image was produced using photosensitive materials, the gradations of brightness would produce different shades of color, not discrete densities of pixels.

So what does the tonality of the image—made up of pixels—represent if not reflected light? With computer software we can plot the relative lighter and darker areas seen in the images and produce a three-dimensional isometric drawing of the body. With computerized virtual reality we can view the body from different angles. We can see the slope of the nose, the recesses of the eye sockets and the shape of the torso. It seems that the image is a graphic representation of the distance between any part of the body and the cloth. This is startling. You cannot do this with a regular photograph or a painting or any known type of pictorial art. There is nothing at all like this imagery in the history of art.
(Source)

In my opinion, it's not a painting and that seems to be backed up scientifically but like I've previously said, I'll never rule it out completely.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 


Ah right, I understand. I still don't see what that painting has to do with the Shroud though


As for the da Vinci theory - I did not say it was a painting, I said it was a primitive form of photography, as I stated in my original post. Also, the fact that it has been replicated using materials and techniques available in the Middle Ages goes to show it is very possible.

It really is a mystery how the image originated though, until further analysis can be done I don't think it will ever be solved.

The History Channel aired “The Real Face Of Jesus,” a documentary featuring the work of computer artists lead by Ray Downing who recreated the face of Jesus in 3D based on the Shroud of Turin.



In the words of the Shroud researcher John Walsh, “The Shroud of Turin is either the most awesome and instructive relic of Jesus Christ in existence... or it is one of the most ingenious, most unbelievably clever products of the human mind and hand on record.”



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by LiveForever8
 


Well, the painting done in the 6th century (A couple of years after the Edessa Cloth was said to have arrived) is EXACTLY the same as what is on the shroud as shown in this image below (see the entire post to understand better)…..




The external link I added in my previous post also explains quite about Leornardo Da Vinci and the photograph theory btw.


Although I’m still unsure how it could have occurred using a ‘primitive form of photography’ still as the shroud itself shows both physical as well as chemical changes even on a microscopic level such as what would have occurred naturally on such a burial shroud.

I mean what about the blood that was also found on the shroud? Blood that we now know is in fact real.


The clots, the serum separations, the mingling of body fluids, the directionality of the flows, and all other medically expected attributes would have been nearly impossible to create by brushing or daubing or pouring human blood onto the cloth. The blood, rich in the bilirubin, a bile pigment that the body produces under extreme trauma, is unquestionably the blood of the man whose lifeless, crucified body was enshrouded in the cloth; even if only for the purpose of crafting a relic-forgery in medieval times.
(Source)

That being so……


"From the article in Thermochimica Acta: "A linen produced in A.D. 1260 would have retained about 37% of its vanillin in 1978. The Raes threads, the Holland cloth [shroud's backing cloth], and all other medieval linens gave the test for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes. The disappearance of all traces of vanillin from the lignin in the shroud indicates a much older age than the radiocarbon laboratories reported."
(Source)

Meaning it should I fact be older by Medieval times by far again meaning I have to ask how could it have been painted, photographed etc?

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Rising Against]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 



I think the biggest problem is that for every one that says it is, there’s another one that says it isn’t.

www.csicop.org...


Rogers (2005) now also reports the presence of vanillin in the lignin of the radiocarbon-sample area, in contrast to its reported absence in other areas of the cloth. This is a dubious finding given his extremely limited samples. He attempts to date the shroud by the amount of the lignin decomposition but admits that that method can offer only an accuracy range of a whopping 1,700 years (contrasted with about 150 years by radiocarbon dating). He concedes that the decomposition could have been accelerated by the baking of the cloth in its reliquary that occurred during the fire of 1532, but thinks it unlikely the cloth is medieval.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rising Against
reply to post by LiveForever8
 


Yeah, that's a great theory and thanks for posting it but I see one problem in all honesty.....

Leonardo Da Vinci Born - April 15, 1452

(Source)

Shroud of Turin founded - April 10 (or 16), 1349

(Source)

The shroud was actually around before the time of Leonardo thus seemingly debunking the theory of him being the painter of the shroud.

Btw have a look at this post if you can, it could be the actual painting of the shroud and it's worth reading.


This is quite an enlightening link as well.


AllAboutArchaology - Da Vinci & The Shroud of Turin

I personally don't believe the shroud was painted, not that I'm saying it is the buriel cloth of Jesus, but i'd agree it's definitely possible and not to be ruled out.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Rising Against]


That is NOT the problem you think it is. Some experts on the Turin Shroud now believe that the original shroud was such a poor quality fake that it was attracting criticism as such. There is historical evidence for this. So the Church withdrew it secretly for a hundred years. Then they suggest that the House of Savoy in Spain, which owned the shroud, commissioned Leonardo secretly to create a new shroud that was so convincing that no one would notice that it was not genuine. And so it remained until modern times........


[edit on 18-7-2010 by micpsi]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I have never heard of another piece of cloth that this has happened to. Am I correct?

If so, then what are the odds of this happening and thusly, occurring with the body of Christ?

Seems like pretty long odds to me.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
The shroud was shown to be a FAKE at the time it was painted.

And, recent tests have confirmed it's a fake.


Kap



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Just want to thank you for the time and effort you put into a well produced thread. One of the best I've seen in a while on ATS.

The topic is sure to stir a passionate debate.

S & F for you.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLoony
I have never heard of another piece of cloth that this has happened to. Am I correct?

If so, then what are the odds of this happening and thusly, occurring with the body of Christ?

Seems like pretty long odds to me.


Incorrect. There are at least six cloths that have been claimed to be the Veil of Veronica, or Sudarium, which according to Catholic legend was the veil used by Veronica as a face cloth to wipe the face of Jesus.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
The shroud was shown to be a FAKE at the time it was painted.

And, recent tests have confirmed it's a fake.


Kap


All Shroud of Turin experts are now agreed that it was NEVER painted onto the cloth. There is no paint pigment that has passed right through the fibres of the cloth, as would happen in a painting. Instead, the fibres confined to the surface are merely discolored by some process (I believe by photo-sensitive chemicals).



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by LiveForever8
 


wow u just blew my mind i had never heard of that and i have tried to study Leonardo for years even watching those lame history channel programs about his inventions he built but he did like to say screw u to religion all the time!! thanks for this you have expanded my knowledge of something im interested in thank you!





new topics
top topics
 
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join