Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The shroud of Turin


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#1    AndyThorley

AndyThorley

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts
  • Joined:20 Sep 2002
  • Location:Right behind you...

  • You're only insane when you think you arent...

Posted 28 May 2004 - 05:18 PM

If you've been living under a rock for your whole life, the shroud of turin is a piece of cloth, which measures 14 feet long and 3.5 feet wide and has a faint life sized image of a crucified man on it.
The earliest confirmed debut of the shroud was in 1353 when it was displayed by it's owner, a knight in France. It was passed down through his family, stolen, reclaimed, sold, lost, found again and eventually was given to the Turin cathedral in 1578.

Scientists didnt really care about it until 1898 when the first pictures of it were taken. The real image on the Shroud is so faint that you can hardly see itbut when seen in the 'negative', the image became clearer; showing a detailed look at a crucified man, with nail marks in his wrists and feet and multiple whip slashes across his back. There were marks across the forehead from the Crown of Thorns Jesus was said to have worn and a gash in his side where, according to the Bible, Longenious (a Roman soldier) thrust his spear. Finding these marks was seen as proof of the belief that this was the burial cloth of Jesus.

In 1988 the pope gave permission for small samples of the Shroud to be tested. The samples were given to labs in Oxford, Tucson, Arizona and Zurich. Carbon dating placed the date of the Shroud in the area of 1260-1390 A.D.
This was also backed up by there being no record of it's existance before the 13th century.

Studies showed the image was indeed 3-D; the cloth's image hade faded to show "both curvature and distance" as if it had been wrapped around someone. The image doesn't penetrate the fibers as paint does, but is only on the top. No trace of pigments were found. However, the fact that it was clearly seen in a negative image inspired Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince the pursue the possibility that the Shroud was an early attempt at photography.

Enter stage left Leonardo DaVinci.

Leonardo had a deep interest in optics and experimented with just about everything that existed, and then some. Supposedly he belonged to a secret sect called 'The Priory of Soin' which believed religion had become the new opium of the masses...a form of control used by the Church that had left it's true 'religious", spiritual and Holy intent.
Supposedly Mr.DaVinci made the Shroud as a 'relic' to mock the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. The Shroud can easily be duplicated today using techniques available in his time, which Picknett and Prince were able to do.

The "holy relic" version of the story goes that the image was created by a 'divine burst of energy' from the body of Jesus at the moment of his resurrection.
The problem with this theory is that if this had happened, the radiated energy would effect any carbon tests and render them null and void.
Though tests on dirt, pollen and the construction materials of the cloth can still place it in the 13th century time frame and having been in loads of eastern locations, skeptiks suggest that this is just 'stuff' the Shroud picked up along the years.

The 'real life' theory is he used one of his supply of corpses (which he got for all his anatomy and dissection studies) on which he meticulously duplicated the wounds of Christ.

Some proof in this can be found in the head on the shroud. It is slightly detached from the body and has a different look to it. Thus it can be suggested that DaVinci used his own face as the head. The similarity is striking if not exact:
Leo:
http://www.artofcolour.com/leonardo-natura...onardo-self.jpg
http://dept.physics.upenn.edu/courses/glad...es/leonardo.gif

Shroud:
http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic//shroud...shroud-face.jpg
http://www.forteantimes.com/gallery/images/shroud.jpg

This explains the "detatched" look the head on the Shroud has, which is a bit too 'tall' to be the head of the body and makes the entire figure over 6' 3" tall.
It has been recorded that Leonardo was that tall (Obviously nobody knows about Jesus)
The ethnic and historical belief is that people of Jewish heritage back in those days weren't people of tall stature. So, the not-made-very-public opinion is the cloth is of 'recent' manufacture and Leo might very well be behind it.

Suggestion: Leonardo mocked up the shroud. Sorry Christian people...

Edited by AndyThorley, 28 May 2004 - 05:23 PM.

Posted Image

#2    Venomshocker

Venomshocker

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 986 posts
  • Joined:21 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Edmonton, Alberta

  • "Everything you are for strengthens you, everything you are against weakens you."

Posted 28 May 2004 - 05:25 PM

The shroud of Turin has the image of Jaques De Molay(i think spelling is right) on it. He was a martyer in the 13th century as far as I remember. I read a real good book on the subject, that explained the shroud and the impressions really well.

http://www.knight-lomas.com/secmessiah.html


Gestalt Reality
"Ultimately there is no such thing as meaning, only experience and creativity."  ~ Pleiadians

#3    Falco Rex

Falco Rex

    The Winged Avenger

  • Member
  • 4,702 posts
  • Joined:04 May 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana

  • I'll write something pithy here later, for now just use it to advertise your band.

Posted 28 May 2004 - 05:58 PM

But de Molay was burned to death not crucified. The shroud of Turin doesn't look much like the body of a burn victim would..


#4    AndyThorley

AndyThorley

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts
  • Joined:20 Sep 2002
  • Location:Right behind you...

  • You're only insane when you think you arent...

Posted 28 May 2004 - 06:08 PM

QUOTE (Falco Rex @ May 28 2004, 06:58 PM)
But de Molay was burned to death not crucified. The shroud of Turin doesn't look much like the body of a burn victim would..

Not to mention the markings on the body of the shroud are exactly the same as a victim of crucifixion.

Medievil paintings of crucified people show them with the nails through the palms. If you nail someone to a plank like that then they fall off...palms are not load bearing.
Wrists are. Plus there's a muscle in there that if you sever it it makes the thumb pull into the palm like crucified people do.

Whoever did this would have to have had some insider knowledge...

Posted Image

#5    Venomshocker

Venomshocker

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 986 posts
  • Joined:21 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Edmonton, Alberta

  • "Everything you are for strengthens you, everything you are against weakens you."

Posted 28 May 2004 - 07:16 PM

I know. De molay was tortured JEsus style. Beat ,and whipped, but not killed. He was then covered by the shroud, and all the sweat, and blood, created the image that is now seen on the shroud. After all that de molay was burned.

Gestalt Reality
"Ultimately there is no such thing as meaning, only experience and creativity."  ~ Pleiadians

#6    saucy

saucy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan

  • Peter Piper picked a pack of pickled peppers.

Posted 28 May 2004 - 09:50 PM

"I hear religious debate!"  *Saucy walks in*

One, I have shown that there is no accurate process of dating objects.  If you were to use all the different techniques, you would probably get different ages, probably of some saying the shroud was millions of years old.  Anyway, history shows that the shroud was in a fire where it was kept and that fire, though it didn't burn, would've added carbon to it, making it age younger than it really was or something like that.  The fact that the shroud was found without a body in it leads me to believe that it is indeed the shroud of Jesus.  Even if the shroud were to be proven 100% not that of Jesus, it wouldn't matter.  Just because they don't have the shroud doesn't mean there's not a Jesus.

Oh yeah, you mentioned pollen and all that, turns out that the pollen matches up with that of the area where he would've been buried.  Saw that on Discovery Channel.


#7    AndyThorley

AndyThorley

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts
  • Joined:20 Sep 2002
  • Location:Right behind you...

  • You're only insane when you think you arent...

Posted 28 May 2004 - 10:03 PM

QUOTE (saucy @ May 28 2004, 10:50 PM)
Oh yeah, you mentioned pollen and all that, turns out that the pollen matches up with that of the area where he would've been buried.  Saw that on Discovery Channel.

It also matches the supposed path that the shroud took.

Posted Image

#8    Chauncy

Chauncy

    Quixotic

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,033 posts
  • Joined:13 May 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

  • "Sanity may be madness but the maddest of all is to see life as it is and not as it should be." (from) Don Quixote

Posted 29 May 2004 - 02:22 AM

I often wondered why, if the shroud wrapped the body of Jesus, didn't the people that were on the scene of the resurrection notice the image? The body was gone, the linens remain, yet no mention of this holy image being left. You would think that the linen would have been the object of adoration and proof! Yet we have no mention of any linen in any ancient text.

Da Vinci was a man of means and humor, his involvement in its creation sounds reasonable. Maybe he did it to ensure lots of laughs in death, while it was debated over. original.gif
user posted image

As long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost and science can never regress.
Julius Robert Oppenheimer. (1904-1967)
Posted Image

#9    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,903 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 29 May 2004 - 03:33 AM

QUOTE (saucy @ May 28 2004, 10:50 PM)
One, I have shown that there is no accurate process of dating objects.  If you were to use all the different techniques, you would probably get different ages, probably of some saying the shroud was millions of years old.  .

Ok saucy I'm fed up with your "Ive proven that all formes of dating are 100% wrong" bs. Just because 4 (wasnt it 4?) experiments provided the incorrect date doesnt mean that the other dates that were verified to be true should be forgotten...

Radiometric dating:
Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results. Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions.
Radiometric dates are consistent with several non-radiometric dating methods.
The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot.
Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity.
Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method.
Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older."
The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on only a few examples. They ignore the vast majority of radiometric dates. One study alone contains about 700 radiometric dating samples on Scottish granite, showing consistent results.

Radiocarbon dating:
Any tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations. Any measurement which exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages not much older than 50,000 years. Using it to date older items will give bad results. In their claims of errors, creationists don't consider such misuse of the technique. It is not uncommon for they themselves to misuse radiocarbon dating by attempting to date samples that are millions of years old or that have been treated with organic substances. In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the Carbon-14 dating method. Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar back for more than 10,000 years. It has also been tested on items whose age is known through historical records, such as parts of the dead sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb. Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques.


"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#10    bathory

bathory

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,302 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 29 May 2004 - 03:41 AM

please saucy, as we have demonstrated time and time again, you are usually wrong, now go away:)


#11    Ozmeister

Ozmeister

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2004
  • Location:Somwhere in Hyperspace

  • I come in peace....shoot to kill

Posted 29 May 2004 - 03:46 AM

QUOTE
Ok saucy I'm fed up with your "Ive proven that all formes of dating are 100% wrong" bs.


Stellar, it's knowledge claimed in ignorance. What a better way to try and dismiss (in a person's own mind) something which is a proven process, when you know little or nothing of how that process really works. It's Saucyology through and through.
  


#12    Chauncy

Chauncy

    Quixotic

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,033 posts
  • Joined:13 May 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

  • "Sanity may be madness but the maddest of all is to see life as it is and not as it should be." (from) Don Quixote

Posted 29 May 2004 - 05:44 AM

With this issue I believe that the secret not lay with dating techniques but more in the shrouds contruction.

The factors necessary to make such an image, whether they be natural causes or a manipulated process is what must be discerned.

Saucy I realize your wish to have the Shroud be divine, or prove scientists this way or another, but you could prove or eliminate either of those through objective investigation. Where as not to dwell on its alleged purpose but to start with the Shroud as simply the object that you see and not what you want it to be.

I read once that mold may have played a role in the images construction.

user posted image

As long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost and science can never regress.
Julius Robert Oppenheimer. (1904-1967)
Posted Image

#13    Lottie

Lottie

    The Nappy Ninja !!

  • Member
  • 7,516 posts
  • Joined:13 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • "I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me." - Noel Coward

Posted 29 May 2004 - 08:11 AM

I think the Turin Shroud is nothing more than a money making scam, publicity stunt by the church. How does anyone know who this is meant to be. Do we have DNA samples of Jesus? Are there DNA samples on the cloth? No.  


#14    AndyThorley

AndyThorley

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts
  • Joined:20 Sep 2002
  • Location:Right behind you...

  • You're only insane when you think you arent...

Posted 29 May 2004 - 12:01 PM

QUOTE (Lottie @ May 29 2004, 09:11 AM)
I think the Turin Shroud is nothing more than a money making scam, publicity stunt by the church. How does anyone know who this is meant to be. Do we have DNA samples of Jesus? Are there DNA samples on the cloth? No.

Do we have DNA samples of Christopher Columbus?

No we do not.

That means that the discovery of america must be a complete fabrication.
Damn you history teachers for lying to us wink2.gif

Lack of evidence =/= lack of validity.
We know who it's meant to be by making educated guesses. We know where it was and how long ago it was there. We know what happened to the man, we know he fits the traditional description of Jesus (though the bible describes him as a black dude with a 'fro...strange how people miss that one)...

So it's guesswork.

Edited by AndyThorley, 29 May 2004 - 12:04 PM.

Posted Image

#15    Boddhi

Boddhi

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 112 posts
  • Joined:12 Dec 2003

Posted 29 May 2004 - 01:13 PM

I fully believe the Shroud to be the work of Leonardo Da Vinci.

I've been fascinated by this for many years, more so than any other subject.

REGARDING JESUS - one thing that has always bothered me is that if the shroud is the one found found in Jesus' tomb and Jesus had risen from the dead, why was the rock covering the entrance to the tomb rolled back?

If he had risen to spirit, surely he would not have had to roll back the rock. If he didn't, who did?

Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users