No, not all of them. Relatively few do, if you had actually looked into the matter further than Wikipedia.

But wait! Not even Wikipedia fully backs up the claim:



--Jaylemurph

I was doing some research on the different haplgroups of European ancestors and have a couple of links here. DNA testing was done on Czar Nicholas to identify him but in the process discovered he belonged to one of the main groups that originated in Mesopatamia, just like alot of English royalty did.This doesnt necessarilly make my case but proves we arent far off the mark claiming that English royalty have a direct link to an ancestor from Mesopatamia. Im being more specific and stating that the link is to the Hyksos, who were the forefathers of the 12 tribes of Isreal. Im really excited about the DNA research because it can lay to rest many theories overnight. Remember the Egyptian authorities refusing to allow DNA research on the mummies for fear they may be Semitic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_T_%28mtDNA%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Daughters_of_Eve

Jayle the reason Im using Wiki is because it's easy and its a site we can all relate to. I dont support all thier findings either down to the last detail but for the most part Wiki is a good starting place. If you have something better to prove your point then simply link it so we can see.

Dark, in response to your question where did I get this information, I believe that the movie I linked stated that the burial site of some Hyksos kings had been found and another city of thiers too. I think that archeologists found an overlapping timeline of 'hebrews' and 'hyksos'. The surnames these kings of Egypt used were semitic. So it wasnt a stretch of the imagination to assume Abraham was probably one of these kings. The Hyksos have a different history than the hebrews of the bible. The bible claims the hebrews were slaves and god set them free through Moses who split the red sea apart. Egyptian history of the Hyksos is different and there were no miracles of parting the red sea to escape. The Hyksos are said to have left under the condition that there would be no bloodshed if they would just leave. I think Moses was probably one of the last Hyksos kings that left with his people to settle the territory of Canaan which Ive read was a territory of Egypt at the time. Either way, the Hyksos were not slaves.

considering I have a lot of British, Irish and Scottish royalty in my family line the info is much appreciated. Especially since the current royal family is very distant relation to me.

So do /lots/ of people. And there's absolutely no link between having DNA that originated in Mesopotamia and having /royal/ DNA in Mesopotamia. It's like saying a random person from the UK has royal blood just because they're from England. (Or Scotland. Or Wales. Or Northern Ireland. Or the Channel Islands.) Your posts are rife with this sort of disregard for reaching a proper conclusion. You're clearly letting what you want to believe affect what you find. If you do want people to take you with any degree of seriousness, you need to people able to apply logic in a consistent, reasonable manner.

And you'd do yourself an inestimable favour if you'd stop using the term "Semitic" when referring to groups of people. As I've pointed out, it's a strictly linguistic term and virtually useless when talking about people. (You wouldn't go around calling people "Anglo-Frisians" or "Finno-Ugrians", would you?) You want to at least /sound/ like you know what you're talking about, and the way you throw that term around is sure proof that you (or perhaps more strictly speaking the people you quote) don't. And it will lead you to a kind of specificity in talking about peoples that will only be helpful to anyone reading your ideas.





Don't get me wrong. Using Wikipedia isn't a bad thing. Or a good thing. It's only as good as its user: you have to check the sources and references, just as you would any other resource. What I was commenting on was (again) your lack of putting that particular comment into its proper context -- which, by the way, is the actual work of history, since you seem to suggest you're busily working away doing actual historical work.

You misrepresented the quote to make it look like it was the consensus among historians, or at least a popular belief. It is not. You would have done better to say "some historians" or more precisely, "a few historians".



See, here you are again making unreasonable assumptions. It may not be a stretch of the imagination, but it's wholly unsupported by any fact, even circumstantial ones. This is not history at all; it's fiction until you have something to base that leap on.

--Jaylemurph

If your theory is correct then you have provided the answer to one particular mystery and that is the figure that appears on the shroud of Turin.
The facial features of the figure are most certainly not semitic but rather european. There is a considerable debate presently raging concerning the age of the shroud. If it really does date from the time of christ and if it really does show the figure of christ in death then he most certainly was european.

It's an approximation but it's not a plus or minus 30 year approximation. Caesar and Cleopatra's child died in 30 BC. I think the discrepancy in Jesus birthday is something like 10 years. The tax that Mary & Joseph were paying when Mary went into labor was instituted by a bureaucrat who held that office ten years before Jesus' official birth year.

They're not European either. They're distortions of human features which are consistant with the stylistic distortions made by medieval artists. Not surprising, given that the shroud was made during the middle ages.

Two nice calls, Siara.

--Jaylemurph

As far as Jesus is concerned there are other gods of that time period that died, were ressurected and ascended to heaven. Mithraism is one. Paul never even wrote about Jesus's life, ministry, miracles, Pontius Pilate. Supposedly Jesus died in 30-33 ad but if thats true then nothing happened after that for 4 decades. None of the Gospels were even written until after 70 ad at the earliest. Paul seems to know nothing of the guy hes supposed to represent.

Theres alot of folklore in the Old and New Testament that was thrown out of the bible because intellectuals like Jesuits said that the stories sounded to incredible. Too folklore"isitc". In 391 the christians burned everything they could find on Mithraism after christianity became the only legal religion of the roman empire.

At best the existing christian account of the life and times of Jesus is a stab at putting a mythical framework over a historic figure who may have lived up to 100 years before Jesus of the bible. Even the virgin birth is nothing new by the time of Jesus, it is Mithraism. Egyptians had tales of virgin births too. Horus is one. Born of a virgin Dec 25th and an angel announced it. He was even tempted by Set on a mountain. Hmmm.

Jesus shares about 20 common points or recurring themes with other popular hero figures of old folklore including Hercules.

I just don't understand why you would take the christian account as gospel without questioning its authenticity. When what Im suggesting is less incredible and there is no walking on water. What Im saying is that probably someone of historic importance lived and the legends of Mithra were attributed to him which is why so much is missing historically of such a supposedly important person like Jesus if the guy is walking on water and raising dead people. Historians didnt even mention him and they were right next to him writing about Ceasar, Cleopatra, Octavian, Augustus, Herod etc.

So theres no definative timeline of the real Jesus that can be 100% substantiated. Only that christian scholars agree to agree on matters important to themselves.

It was Ra the sun god that was meant to have been born of a virgin, not Horus. The 'miracle' surrounding the birth of Horus is that his father Osiris, was dead when his mother, Isis, conceived. Just a little research and you will see that Zeitgeist isnt all truthful.

R.B., this guy isn't into doing basic research, or even caring if he gets whacking great facts wrong.

And I find it incredibly amusing that he can chide people -- with a straight face, apparently -- for taking "the christian account as gospel without questioning its authenticity", but give a far older, far more questionable lineage from the Old Testament, spin it through incredibly spurious countries and eras and generations, and wind up with the Queen, and he'll take /that/ as gospel.

--Jaylemurph

Completely wrong. On all counts lol. You obviously dont keep upto date. This may help:

This article was published in 3 parts in The Glyph, the journal of The Archaeological Institute of America, San Diego, Vol 1, No. 10 (Sept 1997); No. 11 (Dec 1977); No. 12 (March 1998).

Shroud photographs (not appearing in original article) are from Barrie M. Schwortz's Shroud of Turin Website (©Barrie M. Schworz, 1978) linked at the bottom of this page. This is one of the most comprehensive resources on the Shroud of Turin including scientific articles and extensive bibliographies.



The Shroud of Turin

Genuine artifact or manufactured relic?

Jack Kilmon




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.

Physical Examination of the Shroud

FACT: The shroud is a linen cloth measuring 4.6 x 1.1 meters corresponding to a standard measurement of 8 x 2 Philetaric cubits in use in Palestine during the first century. (see Whiston, W., Life and Works of Flavius Josephus, Winston. Chicago, p. 1008-1009)

FACT: The shroud is a herringbone twill with a 3:1 weave, of probably 1st century Syrian design. The flax fibrils contain entwisted cotton fibrils from a previous work of the loom. The cotton is Gossypium herbaceum, a Middle Eastern species not found in Europe. (Raes, G.: La Sindone, 1976; Tyrer, J. Textile Horizons, Dec, 1981)

FACT: The shroud contains pollen grains from 58 species of plants, 17 indigenous to Europe where the artifact has been for 7 centuries and the majority being plants indigenous, some exclusively, to the area of the Dead Sea and Turkey. These include Nyoscyamus aureus, Artemisia herba-alba and Onosma syriacum. (Frei, M., La Sindone, Scienza e Fide, Bologna, 1983; Frei, M., Shroud Spectrum International 3, 1982)

Conclusion: The linen of the shroud was manufactured and woven in the Middle East, most probably Syria, and is a design used in the 1st century, albeit uncommon and expensive.

Image on the Shroud

The shadowy image on the shroud is, of course, its most unique and enigmatic feature. It displays the complete dorsal and frontal image of a severely abused and crucified individual of Semitic characteristics who was laid on the proximal portion of the cloth with the distal portion folded over the head and extended over the body thus creating, through some as yet unexplained chemical or physical process, two "head to head" images of the back and front. The ghostly, sepia colored image is nearly imperceptable close-up but discernable at a distance. It was not until the first photographs were taken of the shroud in 1898 by Turin Councillor Secondo Pia that the negative plates revealed the startling "positive" of the clear picture of the "man in the shroud." The image is of a male, almost 6’ tall, bearded, severely abused and scourged with the distinctive "dumbell" markings of a Roman flagrum. Bloodstains are evident from wounds in the wrists, feet, about the head and brow, and the left thoracic area with pooling under the small of the back and under the feet. The image of the "man in the shroud" also displays signs of beating about the face, swelling under the eye and shocks of his beard having been ripped from his face (a common form of abuse to Jews by Romans). The debate on the authenticity of the shroud focuses on whether this image was transferred to the linen by some means from a real corpse or whether it was artificed by a clever forger.

Chief among the proponents of the image as a "painting" was W. C. McCrone, one of the most respected names in particle analysis. McCrone reliably detected iron-oxide particles throughout the shroud using only optical technique and attributed it to the base of artist’s paint. (McCrone, W. C., The Microscope, 29, 1981, p. 19-38; McCrone, W. C., Skirius, C., The Microscope, 28, 1980, pp 1-13.) Particular attention in this regard was given to the purported "bloodstains" of the image.

FACT: The shroud linen contains particles of iron-oxide.

The debate on the authenticity of the shroud became centered on whether the reliable presence of iron oxide was relevent to the shroud image and the "bloodstains" on the cloth and the precise nature and origin of the iron oxide. A part of the answer to this was provided by x-ray fluorescent analysis performed by STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) scientists R. A Morris, L. A. Schwalbe and J. R. London which determined there was no relevence between concentrations of iron oxide particles and the varying densities of the image. (Morris, R. A., Schwalbe, L. A., London, R. J., X-Ray Spectrometry, Vol 9, no. 2, 1980, pp 40-47; Schwalbe, L. A., Rogers, R. N., Analytica Chimica Acta 135, 1982, pp 3-19)

FACT: Iron Oxide is not responsible for the image on the cloth.

These findings stimulated additional attention to the bloodstains on the cloth. Were these genuine bloodstains or were they "painted" with some form of iron-oxide containing red pigment? This issue was addressed by experts in blood analysis, Dr. John Heller of the New England Institute and Dr. Alam Adler of Western Connecticut State University. Drs. Heller and Adler went far beyond the mere optical examination of McCrone. Applying pleochroism, birefringence and chemical analysis, they determined that, unlike artist’s pigment which contains iron oxide contaminated with manganese, nickel and cobalt, the iron oxide on the shroud was relatively pure. They discovered, through research into the procedures of flax preparation and linen manufacture, that pure iron oxide is normal to the process of fermenting (retting) the flax in large outdoor vats of water.

FACT: The iron oxide, abundant on the linen of the shroud is not the remnant of artist’s pigment.

Dr. Adler then proceeded to apply microspectrophotometric analysis of a "blood particle" from one of the fibrils of the shroud and unmistakeably identified hemoglobin in the acid methemoglobin form due to great age and denaturation. Further tests by Heller and Adler established, within scientific certainty, the presence of porphyrin, bilirubin, albumin and protein. In fact, when proteases were applied to the fibril containing the "blood," the blood dissolved from the fibril leaving an imageless fibril. (Heller, J. H., Adler, A. D., Applied Optics, 19, 1980, pp 2742-4; Heller, J. H., and Adler, A. D., Canadian Forensic Society Sci, Journal 14, 1981, pp 81-103)

FACT: The bloodstains on the cloth are not artist’s pigment but are real blood.

FACT: The bloodstains were applied to the cloth prior to the formation of the image.

Working independantly with a larger sample of blood containing fibrils, pathologist Pier Baima Bollone, using immunochemistry, confirms Heller and Adler’s findings and identifies the blood of the AB blood group. (Baima Bollone, P., La Sindone-Scienza e Fide 1981, 169-179; Baime Bollone, P., Jorio, M., Massaro, A. L., Sindon 23, 5, 1981; Baima Bollone, Jorio, M., Massaro, A. L., Sindon 24, 31, 1982, pp 5-9; Baima Bollone, P., Gaglio, A. Sindon 26, 33, 1984, pp 9-13; Baima Bollone, P., Massaro, A. L. Shroud Spectrum 6, 1983, pp 3-6.)





It is significant that analysis of the blood of the cloth demonstrated high levels of bilirubin consistent with the severe concussive beating suggested by the image of the "man of the shroud."



The 1988 Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud



Radiocarbon dating is the use of accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) to measure the amount of C14, a radioactive isotope of carbon. Plants take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as part of the process of photosynthesis and incorporate the carbon in the plant tissues. Animals absorb C14 into their tissues by eating plants. When the plant dies, no further C14 is absorbed and the C14 that accumulated in life begins to decay at a known rate. The half life of C14 is calculated at 5,730 years. Measurement of the C14 present in the remains of the plant or animal is a method of determining when the plant or animal died. The procedure is valuable for dating organic material later than 50,000 years before the present time. When first used, the procedure required larger samples of the test material, consequently the custodians of the Shroud of Turin were unwilling to permit the destruction of large portions of the shroud. The advances in the procedure has gradually decreased the amount of sample required and permission was finally obtained to test 12 small samples of the non-image bearing portion of the shroud linen. Linen is made from flax, therefore an assessment could be made on when the linen was manufactured. Samples of the shroud were excised and given to three different radiocarbon dating laboratories in Zurich, Oxford and Arizona. The results of the tests were published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature, 1988, titled "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin." The following results were published on the samples tested. The figures are uncalibrated "before present," i.e. 1950 CE. (P. E. Damon, etal., Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin, Nature 337:6208, 16 February 1989, pp 611-615)

Sample dates from Arizona:

591 +/- 30 yrs

690 +/- 35 yrs

606 +/- 41 yrs

701 +/- 33 yrs

Sample dates from Oxford:

795 +/- 65 yrs

730 +/- 45 yrs

745 +/- 55 yrs

Sample dates from Zurich:

733 +/- 61 yrs

722 +/- 56 yrs

635 +/- 57 yrs

639 +/- 45 yrs

679 +/- 51 yrs

The linen of the shroud was manufactured, according to these results, sometime between 1260 CE and 1390 CE with the mean value placing the manufacture of the linen in the 14th century! The results were startling and fueled the opinion that the shroud is a forgery manufactured by a clever medieval artist. Are these results conclusive? A final conclusion on the authenticity of the shroud as an artifact of the first century should be based on a totality of the scientific evidence rather than on one procedure alone. That’s just good science, yet the results of this one procedure is totally oppositional to the many other procedures conducted and the use of radiocarbon dating of textiles has been shown to be problematic in the past. (ACS, Advances in Chemistry #205, Archaeological Chemistry III, American Chemical Society, 1984, Radiocarbon Dating by Particle Accelerator, an Archaeological Perspective). Having said this, let me make it clear that this article is not an indictment of AMS measurement which is an extremely valuable tool for archaeology. Like any new discipline, however, there are still many things to learn about extrinsic factors that may alter accurate measurement. The science of dendrochronology has been invaluable in "calibrating" AMS results. There is still much to learn about natural processes that may incorporate extrinsic carbon into testable substrates.

The "margin of error" claimed by radiocarbonists (within 95% confidence limits) is based strictly on hypothetical statistics. This is reflected in variable results by different testing laboratories on samples of known date. Some examples have been:

Organic materials involved in the Akrotiri volcanic eruption has produced results ranging from 1100 +/- 190 yrs to 2590 +/- 80 yrs, a difference of 1400 years.

The "Lindow Man" body from a peat bog in Cheshire dated conventionally to 300 BCE produced results of 5th century CE (Harwell) to the 1stcentury CE (Oxford).

Highlighting the problematic results of radiocarbon dating of textiles is the dating of mummy 1770 in the British Museum where the bones of the mummy dated 800 to 1,000 years earlier than the textile in which the mummy was originally wrapped.

Three areas of continuing research may explain how the radiocarbon dating of the shroud linen may have been affected by factors other than the true age of the artifact.

On December 4, 1532 The chapel at Chambery, France, where the shroud was housed, caught fire which raged around the silver reliquary where the shroud was kept. The heat was so intense that some of the silver melted and dripped onto the folded shroud. The shroud was rescued from the fire and doused with water but the burn holes are still visible.

FACT: The shroud was subjected to intense heat at low oxygen in 1532.

Dr. Dimitri Kouznetsov of the Sedov Biopolymer Research Laboratory in Moscow has conducted experiments on the accuracy of radiocarbon dating of samples previously exposed to intense heat. Dr. Kouznetsov acquired an ancient linen cloth with origin in Israel, radiocarbon dated to 200 CE. The cloth was exposed to intense heat in the presence of silver, after which it radiocarbon dated 1400 years later! Dr. Kouznetsov attributes this to biofractionalization and the chemical bonding, under heat, of extrinisic C14 to the linen. I will qualify that there are those who question Dr. Kouznetsov's scientific expertise and methodology.

Another source of extrinsic C14 incorporation in the linen of the shroud has been proposed by Researchers J. Mattingly and L. Garza-Vermes at the University of Texas in San Antonio, experts on the biogenic varnishes deposited on archaeological artifacts by bacteria and fungi. Upon examination of the shroud by Dr. Garza, heavy contamination was found. The radiocarbonists who tested the shroud samples also measured the C14 of the bacteria, fungi, and the bioplastic varnish deposited as a result of the symbiosis between the two organisms. The 1988 radiocarbon dating is the result of an averaging of the remaining C14 of the original linen with that of the microorganisms Lichenothelia and Rhodococcus and their resultant calcium carbonate varnish.



Microphotograph of microtomed shroud fibril by Dr. Garza-Valdez showing typical deposition of bioplastic coating and other fungal and bacterial accretion. From "The Blood and the Shroud" by Ian Wilson, 1998, The Free Press, NY, p225.

It is significant that the biopolymer coating can make up the most substantial portion of the fibril. The Texas team also duplicated the cleaning process used by all three radiocarbon labs, even increasing the strength of the solution. This process had absolutley no effect on the biopolymeric coating but instead dissolved some of the flax cellulose. This resulted in less C14 from the shroud itself and even more from the contaminating bioplastic varnish.

See Dr. Garcia-Valdes' Abstract to the Texas Medieval Association at:

http://users.aol.com/fcbrink/hsg/hsgart1.htm

FACT: The shroud of Turin is contaminated with the C14 containing bioplastic varnish of microorganisms still multiplying and present on the artifact.

FACT: The bioplastic varnish undoubtedly present on the shroud's fibrils, and incorporating significant amounts of younger and recent C14, is not effected by the cleaning procedure utilized by the three radiocarbon labs.

In addition to the heat of the 1532 fire and the established biocontamination of the shroud linen, one must also consider the possible effect of centuries of tallow candle smoke and incense.



Is there other evidence for the shroud being older than the radiocarbonists dating of the 14th century?

It is very suggestive that the face of the "man of the shroud" and its unique features has been depicted on iconography dating as early as the 6th century CE. Superimposition of the shroud face with the 6th century icon from St. Catherine’s monastery in the Sinai shows 170 points of congruity (Whanger, A. Applied Optics 24, no. 16, 1985, pp 766-772) as does the shroud face with the gold solidus of Justinian II (692 CE). Although this is very suggestive, one could pose that much of the iconography of the Byzantine period had some, now unknown, model and if the shroud was an artifice of 14th century Europe, an icon could have been used as a model. This would be a valid scientific counter-point. What would be required would be a depiction of what would be unmistakeably the shroud in a document or icon that pre-dates the 14th century date offered by the radiocarbon results. Such a representation would have to feature some unique characteristic of the shroud. Such a representation does indeed exist.

Sometime in the distant past, the folded shroud was subjected to abuse with a "hot poker," perhaps as an act of vandalism to a "Christian relic" or a "test of fire" by a zealous Christian. When folded, the four burn holes are arranged in an "L" shaped pattern. The unfolded shroud displays four sets of these four burn holes symetrically on both the dorsal and frontal halves of the shroud, evidence of the "hot poker" having penetrated the folded layers of the cloth. These burn holes are unique to the Shroud of Turin. In the Byzantine Christian era, the "gamma" and notched bands of Jewish talitoth were used as decorations on tunics and altar cloths. The Christians who adopted these patterns apparently were unaware that the band and the gamma were used on tunics of men (band) and women (gamma) respectively. See Yigael Yadin, Bar Kochba 1971, Random House, Chapter 7 "The Wardrobe" Pp 66-85. During the Byzantine period, around the 5th and 6th centuries, just at the time the "Image of Edessa" was rediscovered in the city wall, the "gamma" marking was used on altar cloths which were called "Gammadia." Did some overzealous Christian or vandal have this in mind when he burned the "gamma" shaped figure into the folded cloth?



"Hot poker" holes in Shroud

An illustration of the entombed and enshrouded Jesus of Nazareth is found in a prayer book from Budapest known as the "Pray Manuscript." The illustration not only depicts the unique "L" pattern of burn holes but also the unique weave pattern of the shroud. There can be no mistake that the Pray Manuscript of 1192 was modeled from the Shroud of Turin. So much for the 14th century date claimed by the flawed radiocarbon dating and certainly support for Drs. Kouznetsov, Mattingly and Garza.





1192 Pray Manuscipt showing "hot poker" holes





Close up of burn holes depicted on Pray manuscript matching exactly those on shroud.

Conclusion. The Pray Manuscript of 1192 illustrates what can only be the Shroud of Turin, predating the earliest possible date of manufacture calculated by the AMS testing.



All of what I have explained above can be found in the voluminous scientific and popular literature on the shroud of Turin. At this point, I would like to offer a different paradigm for assessing the accuracy of the 14th century date and the resulting claim that the shroud is the work of a 14th century forger. Again, this article is not addressing the issue of whether or not the Shroud of Turin was the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth and its value as a "relic" of Christianity. It addresses only whether the shroud is a genuine archaeological artifact of a 1st century crucifixion. This paradigm assumes that the radiocarbonists’ claim that the Shroud of Turin is a 14th century forgery is correct. It is based on what that conclusion tells us about the forger. It tells us that:

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!

CONCLUSION

The Shroud of Turin is a genuine artifact of a first century Roman crucifixion of an adult Jewish male. The radiocarbon dating placing the manufacture of the linen in the 14th century was flawed by extrinsic C14 accumulated over centuries of fungal growth, candle smoke and the intense heat of the fire of 1532. There is NO paint on the linen of the shroud and is not the artifice of a forger.

The Face of the Man of the Shroud

Bibliography



Anderson, A. W. Plants of the Bible, N.Y., 1957

Bercovits, I. Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, Dublin, 1969

Bowman, S. G. E., Ambers, J. C., Leese, M. N., Re-evaluation of British Museum

radiocarbon dates issued between 1980 and 1984. Radiocarbon 32, 1990, pp 59-

79.

Burleigh, R., Leese, M., Tite, M. An intercomparison of some AMS and small gas counter laboratories. Radiocarbon 28, 1986, pp 571-577

Dickenson, I., Preliminary details of new evidence for the authenticity of the shroud:

Measurement by the cubit. Shroud News 58, 1990

Gilbert, R., Gilbert, M. M. Ultraviolet-visible reflectance and fluorescence spectra of the Shroud of Turin. Applied Optics 19, 1980, 1930-1936.

Jumper, E. J., Ercoline, W. R., Three dimensional characteristics of the shroud image.

Proceedings of the IEEE International Congress on Cybernetics and Society, Seattle, 1982, pp 559-75

Miller, V. D., Pellicori, S. F., Ultraviolet fluorescence photography of the Shroud of Turin. Journal of Biological Photography 49, 1981, pp 71-75

Wilson, I., The Mysterious Shroud, Doubleday, NY, 1986

Wilson, I., The Blood and the Shroud, The Free Press, NY. 1998



For more information on the Shroud of Turin, go to:

http://www.shroud.com

I think someone's been pulling your leg, fantazum.

The AIA does not publish a magazine/newsletter called "The Glyph"; they publish two pieces, a magazine called Archeaology and their academic journal, American Journal of Archaeology. Neither is published monthly (the magazine is bimonthly, and the journal, like most academic journals, is quarterly). Furthermore, the offices of the AIA are not in San Diego, they're in Boston and New York.

Jack Kilmon, as it turns out, has a few credentials as a paleographer, but no formal training in archaeology -- certainly not enough to warrant some of the comments he makes in his article, which is disavowed by the actual AIA. The fact that he makes up publications and forges links with the AIA ought to ring alarm bells.

--Jaylemurph

I had heard that much of the forgery could have been done by beating and killing and mutilating an actual human male. Such a thing would not have been beyond some of the people who made fakes for what today would be tens of millions of dollars. Thus there did not need to be a high degree of medical knowledge and artistic ability in placing the blood and wounds, all the forger would need is to kill a real person in a way similar to how Jesus would have died and wrap him up.

That might account for points 1 through 8. If the forger was really good he would have done research and consulted physicians and anatamists of the time. Wouldn't you if you stood to gain ten million from making a fake, but only if it could fool everyone.

Point 9 could be due to importing the cloth. Again the forger did his homework.

I know that if I was a Medieval forger and trying to sell a fake to priests, I'd try to make as much real as possible. It would be assumed that priests were some of the most learned people at the time, so great deal would have to be exercised.

How the image was done, I don't know, but it would seem to be possible using chemicals and some kind of reactive paint. Like I said, I don't know.

lol...then here is the official site of the turin shroud but is says essentially the same as the above.
http://www.shroud.com/

Hmmm.... maybe you're just gullible then, fantazum. That's in no way the "official" website of the Shroud of Turin.

--Jaylemurph

Well heres where I stand on all this.

I still wonder what the real story with Jesus is....basically the legend of Horus attributed to a much later individual...but who?

Concerning early history of Isreal I find the Hyksos kings interesting if not the same people. Hyksos/hapiru/hebrew. If they were two different races of people then why isnt there any account in the bible of the hebrews meeting with them...Im sure they would have bumped into one another in Egypt.

As far as the House of Windsor royal bloodline goes, I havent seen 100% undeniable proof that they are related to the tribe of Judah or Dan so I cant say for certain that they are but what I found interesting in all this is that there are socities of lords and nobles that think there is a link, and seem to have a little bit of history, mingled with folklore to prove it. I thought the story of the 'Stone of Scone' or 'Jacobs Pillow' was interesting.

I never knew either that there was a legend of the Prophet Jeremiah coming to Ireland. Theres still some that say the lineage was broken and the Windsors are imposters. There does seem to be an unspoken tradition that they are though.

The symbols, rituals, Jubilees of MAsonry and the Queen are borrowed from Egypt but why? Did they like the way the Egyptians partied or does it have a deeper meaning?

I thank everyone for dropping by and adding thier thoughts

I thought Jesus was supposed to be linked to Osiris not Horus. Osiris is the one that was dead and then not, and the Resurrection of Jesus is his defining act.


All the European Powers were into Egyptian stuff in the Late 1700s and early 1800s. You'll find all kinds of Egyptian influence all over Europe and the Americas. The Washington Monument in Washington DC is just like an Egyptian Obolisk, but that does not mean George Washington was any relation to Abraham.

What you propose could be true, but the links are stretched very, very thin.

I was wondering about the shroud. Ive heard it said that this was JAques Demolay's image on it after the Pope had him killed...or was it a French king that killed him? Either way it was one of the Templars. The date seems to correlate. Thoughts?

Pope Clement V was convinced by Phillip IV le Bel, who was deeply in debt to them, to dismantle the Knights Templar. It's unlikely that the image was taken from life, since de Molay was burned at the stake, and the image isn't... crispy. But it could have been made by an artist who'd knew him, or seen pictures of him. Or not, as the case may be, as the image is pretty generic (and, as pointed out by Siara, put into Medieval painting conventions for depicting people).

--Jaylemurph

edit: grammar

As for Sumer or Sumerians referenced in the first post, the linguistic evidence tends to point that they were related to the Indo-Europeans and came to southern Mesopotamia from either the Caucasus or Northeastern Iran, but they weren't semitic, their language is not related to semitic, as was their successors, the Akkadians and Babylonians.

Regarding evidence for the Exodus, the History Channel has a documentary that runs every now and then in which Simka Jacobici (unsure of spelling) goes to Egypt and has experts decipher some hieroglyphics which he believes point to evidence for the Exodus. However, he tends to make great leaps of faith in his documentaries, but nonetheless it has some good points.

I'm sorta confused now about what this post is trying to prove or disprove?

Rather irrelevantly, I must admit, I'd like to point out that any 'break in the bloodline' of the British Royal Family does not make the Windsors 'impostors'. Once you've got the crown, that's it. As in any society outside that of a three-volume fantasy epic, the True King or Queen is the one sitting on the throne.

By the way, I'm a republican, so no monarchist axe to grind here.

Sorry about that, Your Maj.

While I appreciate it, when another person has another view that they are trying to prove, I found something about coat of arms.

There are no bees, from what I see: http://www.fleurdelis.com/royal.htm

Now, the one about bees that I did find say this:

Bees were used in Napoleonic heraldry. They were a reserved charge: no one could use a bee without a specific Imperial grant. Princes Grands Dignitaires received on a chief azure a semy of bees or as augmentation (Berthier de Wagram, Talleyrand, Bernadotte, Lebrun de Plaisance). The most important cities of the Empire received a chief gules charged with three bees or: Paris, Aachen, Amsterdam, Bremen, Brussels, Cologne, Dijon, Florence, Genoa, Ghent, Hamburg, Lyon, Parma.

Bees are a symbol of industriousness.

Now, there is a harp in Elizabeth's crest which stands for Ireland, and in her title she is referred to as the Queen of Great Britian and Ireland.

Chinon Parchment, which contains phrases in which Pope Clement V absolves the Templars of charges of heresy, which had been the backbone of King Philip's attempts to eliminate them.

Templars were burned at the stake for heresy by King Philip's agents after they made confessions that most historians believe were given under duress. Philip was heavily indebted to the Templars, who had helped him finance his wars, and getting rid of them was a convenient way of cancelling his debts, some historians say.

The parchment, also known as the Chinon Chart, was "misplaced" in the Vatican archives until 2001, when Frale stumbled across it. source

The real royal bloodline is that of King David his decendents are future kings and princes

This should clear up how history is made up



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C_52bZxie4...feature=related

There's an intriguing article on the BBC's H2G2 website that suggests it might be.

If anyone was capable of forging the Shroud of Turin it would've been Leonardo da Vinci - a true genius of all time. If it is a forgery, he is the most likely suspect. Why? Who can say...

I think it's worth noting that there are no sources posted for that article. Even Wikipedia articles have that.



Imbe, just because you think Leonardo could have done it doesn't make him "the most likely suspect". I can name several painters who /could/have done it, and who might have some reason to do it. The fact of the matter is that Leonardo was pretty lazy, seldom ever actually finishing commissions or private works, nor does we have any reason to suspect he'd do it.

--Jaylemurph

I'm just saying that da Vinci had the expertise in Alchemy, paints, and was smart enough to figure out how to make a "negative image".

But you're right, I don't have any scientific basis to justify pointing a figure to da Vinci - just my gut and speculation regarding his abilities.

Good call.

The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that De Molay was "interrogated" by de Nogret. After a cursory search, I can't find any confirmed source that proves that he was crucified - though several sites refer to him showing the wounds during his trial whilst recanting his confession, claiming that it had been given under duress by torture. I can't find any documented source for that, either.

Other than that, the theory seems to be mostly supposition on the part of The Second Messiah authors, Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas.

Imbe, Leonardo was /not/ an alchemist -- and he'd be upset to be called one. He strongly criticized alchemists at several points in his notebooks. He was a talented man in many areas, but his genius and knowledge didn't extend into every single human field.

--Jaylemurph

Hang on a moment. Wasn't Jesus actually supposed to have been born during the reign of Tiberius? Difficult to see how Octavian could have heard of him in that case. Or am I wrong?