Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Shroud of Turin – Miracle or Man made?

page: 4
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 05:36 AM
link   
As said by everyone, brilliant thread, superbly laid out and researched, to be honest one of the best threads I've seen in a long time.

Now, back to topic, my belief is the shroud is a fake but it's still a very interesting bit of history now. For simple anatomical reasons along with physics and simple fact the shroud cannot be what it claims to be ie a cloth bound around a body, the imprint would not look anything like it..

Get an orange, cover it in paint, wrap a cloth around it and then open the cloth, the image left will not be a circle of the same size as the orange for obvious reasons.

Then we have the 'faith' part of the belief system, well sorry but faith does not cut it in science. For us to simple rely on faith regarding things is an insult to the human brain, this learning computer has and always will rely on learning to keep us alive so to just take things at face value is utter nonsense.

Of course we should research this 'Jesus', people may not want you to and those of faith may not really like what they find but it's still important that a factual account is obtained.

Faith has been proved a massive mistake time after time, you must explore, learn and then re explore with what you have learned, once you have learned more then restart all again using the new skills and available science you have to prove those theories.

Was there a 'God', I don't think so in the sense it's been established, are we alone, I don't think we ever were, there's far more data that seems to show devices coming here all those thousands of years ago, for me, these are the 'gods' that they speak of. I have a lot more trust in that being true but I can never believe it until it's been proved, that's about as near to faith as I get..




posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by metalholic
reply to post by Rising Against
 


just to make things clear jesus looked like a muslim black hair black bead dark eyes and dark skin! if you passed him at an airport you would prolly think he was a terrorist depending on your paranoia!

if he was a white man that opens the door for my theories but thats another story!


2 points.

1.) No I wouldn't think he was a terrorist.


That's a pertty stupid thing to say to be honest.

2.)

Well this is what he apparently looks like.




(I'm not saying this is what he would have looked like, but this is what some scientists think according to the shroud
)

[edit on 19-7-2010 by Rising Against]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eye of Horus
They did some recent DNA tests on the shroud and proved it was a fake. it wasn't 2000+ years old, more like dated around the 1400's.
One more lie that the Vatician wants to promote as the real thing. Science proved them false.



If you read the thread you would know that the tests that confirmed the shroud to be from medieval times is now a confirmed Hoax.


Conterary to what you said, they do in fact believe that the shroud could have been around for 2000 years.


"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)



[edit on 19-7-2010 by Rising Against]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by PsychoX42
 



Sorry to be the downer, and, if you still believe that this shroud is genuine, don't let me spoil your day.

Namaste and Love


Huh? Believe me, nothing could be further from the truth. I appreciate your input and I appreciate everyone’s.

But all I want to do is find out the truth about ‘things’, that’s why I made this thread and that’s why I’m still replying to it.

Every post is important.


[edit on 19-7-2010 by Rising Against]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 


Ok, all you seem to be saying is it's all a fake so at the very least can you back up your claims?

I atleast tried to do so but you don't seem to be for some reason.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Thanks for posting that GST!


It's interesting to say the least and I'm not sure what to make of it because Garlaschelli's image does seem to prove that it is in fact possible to create the image found on the shroud. What I’m curious about is it’s microscopical properties, so maybe you can enlighten me as this faked image is not my strong point but the real shroud on a microscopical level is very interesting.

Anyway for people who don't know about Luigi Garlaschelli and his fake image here is a negative color image of the shroud of Turin and the faked image.

(Real Image on the left, faked image on the right)

It's amazingly well done but It is noticeable how the fake image doesn't look like a ‘deceased person’, the legs are awfully straight and the hands and wrists look very rigid unlike the image on the left which is quite noticeable straight away.

Maybe that’s just me, I don’t know but it just doesn't seem real to me but then again I can see both images. I'm sure if I was only given the faked image it would seem very real indeed.



Also here's a little bit about how they create the images.


Professor Garlaschelli said his team used the same type of woven linen as the shroud and first artificially aged by heating it in an oven and washing it with water. The cloth was then placed on a student, who wore a mask to reproduce the face, and rubbed with red ochre, a well known pigment at the time. The entire process took a week, said Professor Garlaschelli of the University of Pavia.

His replica even includes the spots which, on the original, were said to show blood seeping out of Christ’s nailed hands and feet. The scientists were commissioned by a group of sceptics and atheists called the Italian Committee for Checking Claims on the Paranormal.
(Source)

[edit on 19-7-2010 by Rising Against]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 


Ok, you haven’t replied to my request of backing up your claims so I’ll assume you never saw my post so I’ll reply to what you previously said to another member anyway.



Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by whatsup
The newer sewn pieces in the shroud (from which the samples were taken),


Wrong.
This is a falsehood passed on by believers.


It seems that here you are wrong I’m afraid.

First off, here is what was took from the Shroud and where It went.




This area was chemically different to the rest of the shroud it seems as shown in this image below.



*Photomicrograph: gum is swelling and slowly detaching from the fibers and alizarin mordant lakes can be seen. Yellow dye is in solution. Unique to sample area. Evidence of discrete repairs using methods common in medieval Europe.*

And also this image.....



*Gum encrusted cotton fiber found only in the carbon 14 sample area and not elsewhere on the Shroud of Turin. *


And also you should know that chemically this was also found.......

[extract from opening posts]

Madder Root Dye - Found in the Carbon 14 Sample but NOT in any other area of the shroud.

Alum Mordant - Found in the Carbon 14 Sample but NOT in any other area of the shroud.

Plant Gum Complex with Dye - Found in the Carbon 14 Sample but NOT in any other area of the shroud.

Cotton Fibers - Found in the Carbon 14 Sample but NOT in any other area of the shroud.

Spliced Threads - Found in the Carbon 14 Sample but NOT in any other area of the shroud.

Vanillin in Lignin - Found in the Carbon 14 Sample but NOT in any other area of the shroud.



So I'm afraid your claim that this is false information is seemingly debunked.

Anyway, to your next point........




There are no conflicting reports. There is clear evidence it is a fake. And there are believers who won't accept it, and make wild false claims.


Hmm, can you please show some evidence proving this is a fake?

Also, What wild claims have been made out of curiosity?

Your next point once again......




What "some say" is just false.


Really? Again you provide no evidence to back this up.


How do you know it is not you who is wrong?


To your next and last point point.....



They DID test it. It WAS shown to be fake.


Are you talking about the 1988 carbon dating test??

If so then I'm afraid that is now a confirmed hoax and something which is becoming common knowledge.

I look forward to and appreciate your post in advance my friend.

Thanks.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by Rising Against]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rising Against
It is noticeable how the fake image doesn't look like a ‘deceased person’, the legs are awfully straight and the hands and wrists look very rigid unlike the image on the left which is quite noticeable straight away.


Yes, because corpses are known for their flexibility
You have lost me there RA.



Originally posted by Rising Against
Maybe that’s just me, I don’t know but it just doesn't seem real to me but then again I can see both images. I'm sure if I was only given the faked image it would seem very real indeed.



I think you need to be careful when using terms like 'real' and 'fake'. Both of these images are REAL. One created centuries ago the other created recently - neither are 'fake', both are 'real'.

Also, regarding the 1988 carbon dating test...it is not a Hoax. Once again I think you need to be careful what terms you use RA. A hoax is a deliberate act intended to trick or deceive.

The carbon dating is not a hoax but merely a scientific disagreement about whether certain portions of the cloth were of a different age than others - explained by a repair job in the distant past.

Choose your words wisely


[edit on 19/7/10 by LiveForever8]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Ok, that’s fair enough.


To re-phrase it, I mean in the original image of the shroud the 'figure' we can see looks like that of a figure you would expect to see from something like a burial cloth.

The 'figure' in the cloth made by Luigi Garlaschelli however (sometimes referred to as the The Garlaschelli Fake which is why I said faked image) clearly looks like someone has literally just laid down and lacks a realistic look IMHO.



Also, regarding the 1988 carbon dating test...it is not a Hoax. Once again I think you need to be careful what terms you use RA. A hoax is a deliberate act intended to trick or deceive.

The carbon dating is not a hoax but merely a scientific disagreement about whether certain portions of the cloth were of a different age than other - explained by a repair job in the distant past.

Choose your words wisely


I'd really do agree that I should have used my words more carefully as yes, it wasn’t a hoax in the slightest so I 100% hold my hands up there.

Maybe referring to it as the 'carbon dating mistake' would be more appropriate assuming you believe the carbon dating was incorrect.

Btw this is one of the stronger cases for it being a mistake that you as some others may be interested in reading.

The Cause for a Radiocarbon Dating Mistake?



It was close examination of actual material from the shroud that caused Rogers to begin to change his mind. In 2002, Rogers, in collaboration with Anna Arnoldi of the University of Milan, wrote a paper arguing that the repair was a very real possibility. The material Rogers examined was from an area directly adjacent to the carbon 14 sample, an area known as the Raes corner. Rogers found a spliced thread. This was unexpected and inexplicable. During weaving of the shroud, when a new length of thread was introduced to the loom, the weavers had simply laid it in next to the previous length rather than splicing. Rogers and Arnoldi wrote:

[The thread] shows distinct encrustation and color on one end, but the other end is nearly white . . . Fibers have popped out of the central part of the thread, and the fibers from the two ends point in opposite directions. This section of yarn is obviously an end-to-end splice of two different batches of yarn. No splices of this type were observed in the main part of the Shroud.

Rogers found alizarin, a dye produced from Madder root. The dye appeared to have been used to match new thread to older age-yellowed thread. In addition to the dye, Rogers found a gum substance (possibly gum Arabic) and alum, a common mordant used in medieval dying.
(Source)



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rising Against

If you read the thread you would know that the tests that confirmed the shroud to be from medieval times is now a confirmed Hoax.


Conterary to what you said, they do in fact believe that the shroud could have been around for 2000 years.


Not a hoax, just carried out with faulty protocols (the specimens were taken from the contaminated edge of the cloth).

Yes, there is evidence from the herringbone weave and pollen that the cloth could be as old as 2000 years. But so what? That hardly means that the cloth is the burial shroud of Jesus! The image could have been imprinted by the hoaxer on an old linen sheet that had been brought to Europe from the Holy land by a pilgrim during the Middle Ages.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


Just so you know, I'm not going to edit my previous post but calling it a Hoax was a mistake on my part as it wasn't a hoax at all but more of a mistake (assuming you believe the dating was wrong that is) but I just wanted to make that clear before going further.


Anyway....




Yes, there is evidence from the herringbone weave and pollen that the cloth could be as old as 2000 years. But so what? That hardly means that the cloth is the burial shroud of Jesus!


I couldn't agree more, but the image itself is real IMO although it is still very much open for debate. The blood is also 100% real according to scientific testing so this shroud definitely seems to have come into contact with a body at some time and for quite a time as well perhaps so I think the shroud is cetainly real.

Whether it's the shroud of Jesus, well that's open for debate but If you read the history part at the beginning of this thread I highlighted one way that it could have been the shroud of Jesus. (look up Edessa Cloth)

Just food for thought.



[edit on 19-7-2010 by Rising Against]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Before I read your material, what do you think about the theory held by some shroud researchers that, after the bishop called Henri had questioned the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, it was withdrawn from public view and many years later, the House of Savoy commissioned Leonardo da Vinci to make a new version that would be so realistic that no one in the Roman Catholic Church would question it, so that the shroud could be put on view again and draw in the faithful (and their money)?



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


Well I’m not going to lie to you my friend, that’s an area that I need to research more in all honesty. Something I am doing.

For that reason alone it’s not really a good idea for me IMO to explain anything or try and sway your opinion on the subject etc. so all I’ll say is you should check out this post (incase you haven't already) which was posted by Liveforever8 earlier on in this thread.


It’s an interesting and thought provoking post and I’m sure you could learn by far more from it than me and my limited knowledge on Da Vinci.


Also I’d like to throw this in for consideration as well, it’s one of my lasts posts from the series of opening posts I made in this thread, it explains how the face on a 6th century painting is seemingly the exact face found on the shroud.

Every detail seems to be the same from the nose and mouth to the hair being longer on the right side etc.

The painting was made a couple of years after the Edessa cloth (what most people believe to be the shroud of Turin) arrived in the city.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by Rising Against]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


I have now read your material. Journalist Ian Wilson has put forward the same theory, suggesting that the Shroud of Turin was folded in four and enclosed in an oblong frame so that only the face was visible as the Image of Edessa.

For support, he refers to documents in the Vatican Library and the University of Leiden, Netherlands, which seem to suggest the presence of another image at Edessa. A tenth century codex, Codex Vossianus Latinus Q 69 found by Gino Zaninotto in the Vatican Library contains an eighth-century account saying that an imprint of Christ's whole body was left on a canvas kept in a church in Edessa: it quotes a man called Smera in Constantinople: "King Abgar received a cloth on which one can see not only a face but the whole body" (in Latin: [non tantum] faciei figuram sed totius corporis figuram cernere poteris).

My tentative opinion is that the Edessa Image is the original (now lost or destroyed) version of the Shroud of Turin, which is its replacement, fabricated by someone clearly of genius, using genuine cloth from the Holy Land. This would require the Edessa Image to be an artifact as well (probably a painting).

Do you have any arguments that can refute this theory?



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Assuming the Edessa Cloth is the Shroud of Turin (sadly it can’t be confirmed as the Shroud was move to Constantinople and then the city was under siege by French and Venetian Crusaders who then looted the city.

Then there was a Gap but the Cloth could have been In Athens at some point.

Then it seemingly turns up in France through one of the descendents of the crusaders and is later known as the Shroud If Turin.

So it seems as though the Edessa Cloth is in fact the Shroud of Turin.


The Venetians partitioned the treasure of gold, silver and ivory, while the French did the same with the relics of saints and the most sacred of all, the linen in which our Lord Jesus Christ was wrapped after His death and before the resurrection. We know that the sacred objects are preserved by their predators in Venice and France and in other places.
(Source)


Well, just 3 years later, Nicholas d’Orrante, Abbott of Casole and the Papal Legate in Athens, wrote about relics taken from Constantinople by French knights. Referring specifically to burial cloths, he mentions seeing them “with our own eyes” in Athens.

Which if true means the cloth is certainly in Athens at around 1207 AD. Sadly though this is where not much is heard about the Edessa cloth at all, in fact nothing at this time is known about what is known to us as the shroud of Turin at all.


From opening posts.

So it seems that the Shroud wasn't destroyed at all or even lost but instead travelled to Athens and then possibly France, although of course it's always going to be up for debate but as far as I'm aware there is no evidence to suggest it was destroyed and then re-made again. (I’d genuinely love to see some though if there is indeed some)

The evidence we have also seems to explain that the shroud blood for example as well as the shroud itself COULD be around 2000 years old, Apart from the repaired sections of course as chemically they show otherwise.

Was the shroud destroyed/Lost? It's possible but I don’t see a reason to believe so to be perfectly honest.

Was it re-made assuming it was in fact Lost? I don't see that being true but I could always be wrong ofc.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Your comparison between the Christ Pantocrator icon and the Shroud negative image is quite striking. However, these sorts of comparison never convince scholars because they can always dismiss the spatial matching of the various features as coincidental. But there is a more serious problem. How would the copy artist have known what the negative of the face in the Shroud of Turin looked like? They did not have photos in those days and did not have any means to turn the Shroud of Turin into its negative! The facial features only becomes clear in the negative, and the artist would not have had enough facial details to make a copy that matched the negative accurately to the degree you demonstrate.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


Well, I'm sure you can understand this by far better than me but is it possible that in the 6th century, which was when this painting occurred, the images on the shroud would have been by far clearer to see?

Also it was a couple of years after the shroud arrived that the painting was achieved so maybe plenty of time was also given to complete the painting?

It's all speculation ofc.
But it’s an interesting theory nonetheless.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Another problem in identifying the Edesa Image with the Shroud is that it would imply that the latter is a genuine burial cloth of someone who died. The image is not painted onto the linen, so the Edessa Image could not have been fabricated in this way. But if this is the case, why does it show the cruxification marks of Jesus? They would have had to be forged somehow - but how, if they were not painted? If it is NOT his burial shroud (and there are many arguments for this), then it must still be a forgery - but one that is far older than the Middle Ages. But if it had been made by draping a cloth over a corpse and wrapping it around the head, the proportions of the face would be distorted in the negative, whereas they are natural. This is an excellent argument against the shroud being a genuine burial cloth.

As far as I am concerned, the only realistic method of manufacture is photography, using a real corpse. This would explain why the image is a negative, why the torso is too long, why the head appears detached from the top of the torso (an error) and why a few years ago an Italian physicist found a faint image on the back of the sheet (it was a trial run).

Naturally, there is no evidence for substitution of the shrouds. But, of all the possible theories, this makes the most sense to me.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rising Against
reply to post by micpsi
 


Well, I'm sure you can understand this by far better than me but is it possible that in the 6th century, which was when this painting occurred, the images on the shroud would have been by far clearer to see?



Yes, I did not think of that. That is certainly possible, although I still doubt whether a realistic painting could have been made from the positive image. However, the Edessa Image could not have been painted if it is the Turin Shroud - all the experts agree it is NOT a painting. This raises serious problems for its fabrication, for I know of no realistic method of creating this image except photographically, and even I have a problem in accepting the possibility that people in 600 AD (or whenever) knew the principles of photography then.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


Star for your knowledgable and of course thought provoking post good sir,



Naturally, there is no evidence for substitution of the shrouds. But, of all the possible theories, this makes the most sense to me.


And believe me, it certainly does make sense to me also and my opinion on the subject matter is somewhat swaying slightly reading through the posts in this thread.

Beforehand I was starting to believe the shroud was from around the time of Jesus and possibly his own burial shroud but like always the members of ATS blow my mind as I’m sure they will continue to do and opinion wise I’m more on the side of the fence that points to this shroud being something that man created long after Christs death.


As far as I am concerned, the only realistic method of manufacture is photography, using a real corpse. This would explain why the image is a negative, why the torso is too long, why the head appears detached from the top of the torso (an error) and why a few years ago an Italian physicist found a faint image on the back of the sheet (it was a trial run).


I have to ask though, what are YOUR views on Da Vinci's connection to the shroud? Do you believe it was him who was the man in charge of recreating the shroud or possibly someone else?

[edit on 19-7-2010 by Rising Against]





new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join