Has God left us a photograph of Christ's resurrection?

[Government_Controlled]

...there are documentaries online in which you can watch a Shroud of Turin being replicated. It's not that difficult, teenage kids have done it for science fair projects.

I could do it myself (full real life scale) for about a thousand bucks.

You can do it small-scale with a Star Wars figurine for about fifty bucks worth of chemicals.

Picknett and Prince have even written a book explaining the method in detail and citing reams upon reams of historical evidence building the very strong (albeit circumstantial) case for Leonardo being the perpetrator of the hoax.

I guess this "association of agnostics and atheists" (most probably a front for religiously-minded delusionists eager to report the Shroud "Unfakable!" with the borrowed mantle of scientific authority)... I guess they just couldn't be bothered to do even a cursory Google search.


Is this how you guys become religious in the first place?

You just never grew out of the childhood gullibility inherent in humans?

Do you believe all those Big-Tobacco "scientists" who still can't find a link between smoking a cancer despite fifty years of continuous well-funded studies? What about Scientology? That's a "science-based" religion which claims to have lots of scientific evidence to back it up?


Ahh... why do I bother... Loco, you'll just read the first sentence of this post, scan the rest and spew some more ignornant dismissive emotional reactions. You don't comprehend, you can't understand and you like it that way.


The Luke

Why keep beating a dead horse, Luke? Christians don't give one bit of care whether this shroud is the "real' deal or not. Christians (True) have and always will have solid evidence of God's existence without this nonsense. What's your point?





GC/DEA_AGENT

[loco]

Why keep beating a dead horse, Luke? Christians don't give one bit of care whether this shroud is the "real' deal or not. Christians (True) have and always will have solid evidence of God's existence without this nonsense. What's your point?





GC/DEA_AGENT

I don't know what the deal is with Luke, but for some strange reason the Shroud of Turin seems to make certain agnostics and atheists such as Luke very nervous.

[loco]

...there are documentaries online in which you can watch a Shroud of Turin being replicated. It's not that difficult, teenage kids have done it for science fair projects.

I could do it myself (full real life scale) for about a thousand bucks.

You can do it small-scale with a Star Wars figurine for about fifty bucks worth of chemicals.

Picknett and Prince have even written a book explaining the method in detail and citing reams upon reams of historical evidence building the very strong (albeit circumstantial) case for Leonardo being the perpetrator of the hoax.

I guess this "association of agnostics and atheists" (most probably a front for religiously-minded delusionists eager to report the Shroud "Unfakable!" with the borrowed mantle of scientific authority)... I guess they just couldn't be bothered to do even a cursory Google search.


Is this how you guys become religious in the first place?

You just never grew out of the childhood gullibility inherent in humans?

Do you believe all those Big-Tobacco "scientists" who still can't find a link between smoking a cancer despite fifty years of continuous well-funded studies? What about Scientology? That's a "science-based" religion which claims to have lots of scientific evidence to back it up?


Ahh... why do I bother... Loco, you'll just read the first sentence of this post, scan the rest and spew some more ignornant dismissive emotional reactions. You don't comprehend, you can't understand and you like it that way.


The Luke

Oh, now you can replicate the Shroud of Turin yourself?  Then the association of atheists and agnostics should have given the money to you instead of giving it to this scientist.  Oh, wait...this Italian association of atheists and agnostics is just a front for religiously-minded "delusionists."  

Not to mention your claim that the US has never won any wars.

What are you Luke, some kind of gimmick?

[MCWAY]

Oh, now you can replicate the Shroud of Turin yourself?  Then the association of atheists and agnostics should have given the money to you instead of giving it to this scientist.  Oh, wait...this Italian association of atheists and agnostics is just a front for religiously-minded "delusionists."  

Not to mention your claim that the US has never won any wars.

What are you Luke, some kind of gimmick?

He's apparently so cracked in the skull that he's now crediting Loco's statements to me.

Earth to Luke,

"Contrary to your claims,  neither the Catholic Church nor protestants claim that this is the shroud that covered Jesus' dead body.  And contrary to your claims, it has yet to be proven a fake."

That quote was from LOCO, not me. This is the first post that I've made on this thread today.

[MCWAY]

Why keep beating a dead horse, Luke? Christians don't give one bit of care whether this shroud is the "real' deal or not. Christians (True) have and always will have solid evidence of God's existence without this nonsense. What's your point?


GC/DEA_AGENT

He mentioned his point, earlier. It's same reason he keeps flapping about Jesus supposedly being crafted from pagan gods.

His point is, "the Vatican knows Jesus never existed... always have known. The Shroud is a fake; Jesus is a hoax; religion is a scam. Accept it.

Of course, that is utterly ridiculous and easily dissected with some simple and easily-accessible facts.

As Dr. Gary Habermas (author of "The Historical Jesus" and commentator on the TV special, "Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen?") indicates, Jesus' life is documented in about 20 NON-CHRISTIAN sources.

And, there's enough information about Him that, "you can get an outline of His life and never touch the New Testament".

[The Luke]

"Contrary to your claims,  neither the Catholic Church nor protestants claim that this is the shroud that covered Jesus' dead body.  And contrary to your claims, it has yet to be proven a fake."

That quote was from LOCO, not me. This is the first post that I've made on this thread today.

...yep, sorry about that... didn't mean to misquote, accidental.

His point is, "the Vatican knows Jesus never existed... always have known. The Shroud is a fake; Jesus is a hoax; religion is a scam. Accept it.

Of course, that is utterly ridiculous and easily dissected with some simple and easily-accessible facts.

As Dr. Gary Habermas (author of "The Historical Jesus" and commentator on the TV special, "Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen?") indicates, Jesus' life is documented in about 20 NON-CHRISTIAN sources.

And, there's enough information about Him that, "you can get an outline of His life and never touch the New Testament".

...one word: interpolation.

There are NO primary sources for Christianity. There are NO contemporary sources referencing Jesus. There is NO historical evidence that Jesus ever existed.

This is a simple fact... only Christian apologists insist otherwise.

If I Google "Dr Gary Habermas" will I discover him to be a rational atheist historian? Or a Jeebus freak?



I think the best thing for this thread would be if I linked to one of the demo videos showing how the Shroud was made... I'll try and do that tomorrow (busy tonight).


The Luke

[MCWAY]

...yep, sorry about that... didn't mean to misquote, accidental.

...one word: interpolation.

There are NO primary sources for Christianity.

Wrong on that one. The source is Jesus Christ, along with the Gospels, as taught and spread by Jesus' disciples and the apostle Paul.

There are NO contemporary sources referencing Jesus. There is NO historical evidence that Jesus ever existed.

STRIKE TWO!!!

First, contemporary sources aren't necessary. Most information we have about historical figures come from sources, written centuries after their existence. Alexandar the Great is a prime example. The bulk of the data on him comes from Arrian's "Annabis of Alexandar", written at least two centuries after Alex died.
 

Second, as stated earlier, we have non-Christian sources, citing the existence of Christ: Lucian, Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, just to name a few.

This is a simple fact... only Christian apologists insist otherwise.

If I Google "Dr Gary Habermas" will I discover him to be a rational atheist historian? Or a Jeebus freak?

You can google him all you want. The facts are there, regarding the existence of Jesus Christ, despite the claims of so-called rational atheist historians, who are so paranoid about Christ, that they must attempt to whitewash His entire existence.

I think the best thing for this thread would be if I linked to one of the demo videos showing how the Shroud was made... I'll try and do that tomorrow (busy tonight).


The Luke

Knock yourself out!! The Shroud hold no bearing on Christ's existence. At best, all it shows it that the aforementioned cloth ain't the one in which He was buried.

[loco]

I'm still waiting for The Luke to back up his bold, baseless claims from other threads:

The Luke,
Produce a single version of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews that does not mention Jesus Christ at all.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=247264.msg3545243#msg3545243

[MCWAY]

I'm still waiting for The Luke to back up his bold, baseless claims from other threads:

The Luke,
Produce a single version of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews that does not mention Jesus Christ at all.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=247264.msg3545243#msg3545243

That's been nearly a year, hasn't it?

[Government_Controlled]

There are NO primary sources for Christianity. There are NO contemporary sources referencing Jesus. There is NO historical evidence that Jesus ever existed.

This is a simple fact... only Christian apologists insist otherwise.


The Luke

Just food for thought. Everyone knows about historian Will Durant, well here is a point he made about Jesus - “That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.”

Also ask yourself: Would it be possible a person who never lived to have affected human history so singulary?

Another point to dwell on. Even calendars today are based on the year that Jesus was thought to have been born. The World Book Encyclopedia states, and I quote, Luke  - "Dates after that year are listed as A.D., or anno Domini (in the year of our Lord). Dates before that year are listed as B.C., or before Christ,”

Isn't that odd that these well renowned sources disagree with you, Luke?









GC/DEA_AGENT

[The Luke]

That's been nearly a year, hasn't it?

...read the thread. I named it: the Slavonic Josephus... it mentions someone named "the Christ" but doesn't have the Jesus reference. So at least one of the Christian references is an interpolation and the other isn't specific to Jesus (Bar Kochba was actually officially installed as both "Christ" and "Messiah" by the Sanhedrin for example).

I swear, the reading comprehension on this board is atrocious.


The idea that Josephus, someone who actually believed in the imminent appearance of the "Logos" and even made reference to the miraculous ordained birth of Augustus, would forget to mention an historical character such as Jesus, if such existed, is ridiculous... instead we have Christian apologists defending obvious interpolations written in a different style despite the fact that the Christian Church made concerted efforts to eradicate all the versions of Josephus (and other texts) that lacked the interpolations.

What's next? Will you be defending the "Wisdom of Jesus" text, you know that one... a copy of "The Wisdom of Plato" wherein someone inserted "Jesus said:" before every paragraph? If the Vatican had managed to burn every copy of "The Wisdom of Plato" (like they did most of the gospels) you guys would be defending that as a primary source from Jesus too.


Like I said:
-There are NO primary sources for Christianity.
-There are NO contemporary sources referencing Jesus.
-There is NO historical evidence that Jesus ever existed (except that manufactured later by Christians).

...ALL the evidence insisted upon by apologists is faked or decidedly suspect in light of the very, very real evidence of Christians systematically faking such evidence ever since the founding of the Christian sect.

There is no debate on this... it is a matter of scholarly finding of long standing.


That's what makes this whole Shroud debate so laughable... Christians used to have thousands of "genuine" relics, hundreds of "genuine" historical references to an actual historical Christ and no good evidence of christs before Christ.

Now, well it's a different matter...
-every Christian relic has been exposed as a fake or a hoax
-the entire three tons of fragments of the True Cross have been exposed as fakes by dendochronology
-the entire Christian canon has been dated and traced, to centuries AFTER Jesus
-large sections of the Gnostic canon (at odds with Christian dogma) has been recovered
-the Gnostic writings have been shown to have equal, if not better provenance than their rivals
-archaeology has produced evidence of dozens of other Jesus characters predating Jesus
-every snippet of evidence for a historical Jesus has been shown to be interpolations or faked

But what has this resulted in? Bullshit arguments that accept the Canonical gospels while simultaneously dismissing the Gnostic gospels... with no rhyme or reason.

Bullshit arguments that dismiss all the precedent pagan versions of the Jesus story based on minute discrepancies, while simultaneously refusing to concede the plethora of exact similarities... justified only by hysterical blindness.

Here on this thread, we have three Christian literalists doing everything they can to defend the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin while hedging their bets with the caveat that their particular one and only true version of Christianity out of the 34,000 current Christian sects has never explicitly claimed the Shroud is Jesus' burial cloth.

You guys are hilarious.... it's a fake. Say it with me: FAKE!

A good fake, and immensely valuable both as an extant Da Vinci and an early proto-photograph... but a fake none the less.



The Luke

[loco]

No.  We already went over this, and you failed:

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=247264.msg4305271#msg4305271

[The Luke]

Okay, okay.... as promised:


Here is the first part of the Picknett and Prince documentary detailing the evidence for Leonardo as the hoaxer behind the Shroud and demonstrating exacty how such a proto-photograph is made using only Medieval technology:

...and here are the other parts:

&feature=related   part 2

&feature=related   part 3

&feature=related   part 4

&feature=related   part 5

&feature=related   part 6

The art historian Nicholas Allen has also shown conclusively that the Shroud of Turin is fully reproducible using only Medieval technology and a basic understanding of the proto-photographic techniques detailed in the Arab-science inspired "Book of Optics" which was circulating in Europe at the time. He did his PhD thesis on the subject and has since published two scientific scholarly papers on the technique:

Allen, Nicholas P. L.(1993) Is the Shroud of Turin the first recorded photograph? The South African Journal of Art History, November 11, 23-32

Allen, Nicholas P. L.(1994)A reappraisal of late thirteenth-century responses to the Shroud of Lirey-Chambéry-Turin: encolpia of the Eucharist, vera eikon or supreme relic? The Southern African Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 4 (1),62-94

...which you can find referenced on Wikipedia's extensive "Shroud of Turin" page.

He also wrote a book:
Allen, Nicholas P. L.(1998)The Turin Shroud and the Crystal Lens. Empowerment Technologies Pty. Ltd., - Port Elizabeth, South Africa


Hopefully you Jeebus-freaks will take the time to look at the evidence, or would you like me to detail exactly how to reproduce the Turin Shroud in laymans terms?


The Luke

[MCWAY]

...read the thread. I named it: the Slavonic Josephus... it mentions someone named "the Christ" but doesn't have the Jesus reference. So at least one of the Christian references is an interpolation and the other isn't specific to Jesus (Bar Kochba was actually officially installed as both "Christ" and "Messiah" by the Sanhedrin for example).

I swear, the reading comprehension on this board is atrocious.

Yep, and nearly all of it comes from YOU! Loco already shot this claim of yours down. The Slavonic Josephus does, in fact, mention Jesus Christ.

Plus, there's the little matter that Slavonic Josephus is nearly 1000 years older than the Greek version, a fact you conveniently left out.

The idea that Josephus, someone who actually believed in the imminent appearance of the "Logos" and even made reference to the miraculous ordained birth of Augustus, would forget to mention an historical character such as Jesus, if such existed, is ridiculous... instead we have Christian apologists defending obvious interpolations written in a different style despite the fact that the Christian Church made concerted efforts to eradicate all the versions of Josephus (and other texts) that lacked the interpolations.

Jesus wasn't a "historical character" at the time Josephus wrote his works. Nonetheless, despite your silly claim to the contrary, Josephus did mention Him, as Loco clearly pointed out.

What's next? Will you be defending the "Wisdom of Jesus" text, you know that one... a copy of "The Wisdom of Plato" wherein someone inserted "Jesus said:" before every paragraph? If the Vatican had managed to burn every copy of "The Wisdom of Plato" (like they did most of the gospels) you guys would be defending that as a primary source from Jesus too.


Like I said:
-There are NO primary sources for Christianity.
-There are NO contemporary sources referencing Jesus.
-There is NO historical evidence that Jesus ever existed (except that manufactured later by Christians).

...ALL the evidence insisted upon by apologists is faked or decidedly suspect in light of the very, very real evidence of Christians systematically faking such evidence ever since the founding of the Christian sect.

And what you said is just as dumb and inaccurate as it was the last time you mentioned it. We have the non-Christian sources that mention Jesus Christ by name. They've been studied, examined, and found to be (for the most part) authentic.

So, you and your tired Jesus-myth routine (and old rehash from the "Enlightenment Period", that has been dismantled to the point of nauseum) will have to find a new routine.

But, don't take my word for it:


The sources for Jesus are better than those that deal with Alexander the Great. The original biographies of Alexander have all been lost, and they are known only because they were used by later - much later - writers. The primary sources for Jesus were written nearer his own lifetime..." .

"The Christian scribes probably only rewrote the text [Testimonium Flavianum]. It is highly likely that Josephus included Jesus in his account of the period.Josephus discussed John the Baptist and other prophetic figures, such as Theudas and the Egyptian. Further, the passage on Jesus is not adjacent to Josephus' account of John the Baptist, which is probably where a Christian scribe would have put it had he invented the whole paragraph. Thus, the author of the only surviving history of Palestinian Judaism in the first century thought that Jesus was important enough to merit a paragraph, no more, no less." - E.P. Sanders, "The Historical Figure of Jesus"

There is no debate on this... it is a matter of scholarly finding of long standing.

It sure is, and that's why your pathetic claims CONTINUE to get trounced.

That's what makes this whole Shroud debate so laughable... Christians used to have thousands of "genuine" relics, hundreds of "genuine" historical references to an actual historical Christ and no good evidence of christs before Christ.

Now, well it's a different matter...
-every Christian relic has been exposed as a fake or a hoax
-the entire three tons of fragments of the True Cross have been exposed as fakes by dendochronology
-the entire Christian canon has been dated and traced, to centuries AFTER Jesus
-large sections of the Gnostic canon (at odds with Christian dogma) has been recovered
-the Gnostic writings have been shown to have equal, if not better provenance than their rivals
-archaeology has produced evidence of dozens of other Jesus characters predating Jesus
-every snippet of evidence for a historical Jesus has been shown to be interpolations or faked

But what has this resulted in? Bullshit arguments that accept the Canonical gospels while simultaneously dismissing the Gnostic gospels... with no rhyme or reason.

Bullshit arguments that dismiss all the precedent pagan versions of the Jesus story based on minute discrepancies, while simultaneously refusing to concede the plethora of exact similarities... justified only by hysterical blindness.

PLEASE!!! I've asked you, point blank, to come up with the so-called "Mystery Religion" versions of those characters that mirror Jesus Christ. TO THIS DAY, you haven't produced a thing.

"Minute discrepancies"? Whatever!!! That's your pitiful and tired excuses, when you get shown in black-and-white that your claims about those figures are false.

Exact similarities!? Let's see. You claimed "virgin birth" for Attis....WRONG!!! You claim that he rose from the dead......WRONG!!!! And, when clearly shown that he didn't die via crucifixion (which you said he did earlier), you make the most MORONIC attempts to use vauge tree references to equate Attis' self-castration with Christ's crucifixion.

Same goes for Osiris! You claimed he was crucified; he got drowned!

"Exact similarities"? NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!

That reminds me!! You've also ducked and dodged the issue of your silly dying-resurrecting godman stuff, with regards to Attis, Osiris, Dionysus, among others. Those guys DO NOT RISE from the dead, thus squashing your spiel flat.

Here on this thread, we have three Christian literalists doing everything they can to defend the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin while hedging their bets with the caveat that their particular one and only true version of Christianity out of the 34,000 current Christian sects has never explicitly claimed the Shroud is Jesus' burial cloth.

We also have one Biblical skeptic, making utterly boneheaded claims, who runs like a scalded dog, when called to back up his statements. The fact that Loco asked you a question that YOU HAVE DUCKED AND DODGED FOR NEARLY A YEAR shows just how cracked your takes really are.

You guys are hilarious.... it's a fake. Say it with me: FAKE!

A good fake, and immensely valuable both as an extant Da Vinci and an early proto-photograph... but a fake none the less.



The Luke

Maybe you don't read or hear very well. The Shroud of Turin is basically irrelevant, as far as the existence of Jesus Christ is concerned. It's either the cloth in which Jesus was buried or it's not. Either way, that does nothing, with regards to the existence of Jesus Christ.

[loco]

Okay, okay.... as promised:


Here is the first part of the Picknett and Prince documentary detailing the evidence for Leonardo as the hoaxer behind the Shroud and demonstrating exacty how such a proto-photograph is made using only Medieval technology:

...and here are the other parts:

&feature=related   part 2

&feature=related   part 3

&feature=related   part 4

&feature=related   part 5

&feature=related   part 6

The art historian Nicholas Allen has also shown conclusively that the Shroud of Turin is fully reproducible using only Medieval technology and a basic understanding of the proto-photographic techniques detailed in the Arab-science inspired "Book of Optics" which was circulating in Europe at the time. He did his PhD thesis on the subject and has since published two scientific scholarly papers on the technique:

Allen, Nicholas P. L.(1993) Is the Shroud of Turin the first recorded photograph? The South African Journal of Art History, November 11, 23-32

Allen, Nicholas P. L.(1994)A reappraisal of late thirteenth-century responses to the Shroud of Lirey-Chambéry-Turin: encolpia of the Eucharist, vera eikon or supreme relic? The Southern African Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 4 (1),62-94

...which you can find referenced on Wikipedia's extensive "Shroud of Turin" page.

He also wrote a book:
Allen, Nicholas P. L.(1998)The Turin Shroud and the Crystal Lens. Empowerment Technologies Pty. Ltd., - Port Elizabeth, South Africa


Hopefully you Jeebus-freaks will take the time to look at the evidence, or would you like me to detail exactly how to reproduce the Turin Shroud in laymans terms?


The Luke

Luke,
You forget that you already made me watch all 6, long boring videos, and they show no evidence of such.  It is nothing but theories with no evidence to back them up.  In the video, they themselves admit that among the many many records Leonardo left behind, not a single one makes any mention of the Shroud or anything even close.

You yourself admitted to me that these are not the best videos to back up your claims.  Why are you posting them again?

...I can answer that with a quote:

...actually, being more serious, that's from a National Geographic documentary called "Leonardo: The Man Behind the Shroud", it's pretty long winded and far too inclusive of the shittier theories regarding the manufacture of the crowd. All that bullshit regarding "bas reliefs" and bacterial staining of cloth etc is totally pointless.

What you need to see is the BBC documentary "Double Exposure".

That goes very in-depth into the proto-photograph technique, even making a copy of the Shroud.


I've also seen a really damning documentary (although translated into Irish as part of the "Fiorsceal" ["true story"] series), in which a chemist produced dozens of versions of the Shroud using only technology and materials available in the 11th century. But I can't find either that or the BBC documentary online.

I'll see if I can dig up any of the old Equinox or Horizon documentaries, some of them are pretty convincing.


The Luke

Furthermore:

Some Say the Image on the Shroud of Turin is Leonardo da Vinci
Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, in their book Turin Shroud: In Whose Image (Harper Collins, NY, 1994) suggest that the Shroud is an early example of photography showing the portrait of its creator, Leonardo da Vinci. According to this speculative theory, the image was made using a magic lantern, a simple projector, and light-sensitive chromium salts in an egg white medium.

Because Leonardo (1452-1519) was born almost a full century after a documented appearance of the Shroud in western Europe, the authors propose that the original cloth was a poor fake and Leonardo superior a superior hoax version. It should be noted that there are no historical reports of a sudden change in the appearance of the image on the Shroud.

Their argument is based on little more than that . . .

da Vinci was a capable genius who understood the camera obscura (pin hole camera)

he understood something of the chemistry knowledge of his era

he was highly motivated to fool the church

the image on the Shroud has many facial characteristics similar to those on the Shroud

a sense that the picture could only have been made with a lens

The late Dr. Alan D. Adler, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at Western Connecticut University, in an article,, “The Nature of the Body Images on the Shroud of Turin,” comments:


In “Turin Shroud”, Picknett and Prince, assign the image on the Shroud to Leonardo. They propose a photochemical mechanism with sunlight reflected from a statue via optics to image on sheet of cloth charged with a mixture of egg white and chromium salts. As this is an albedo image, it will fail a VP-8 test and there is no chemical or spectroscopic evidence for their chemical sensitizers. They do not deal with the blood image problem. Leonardo may rest easily in his grave.

Adler's reference to "VP-8 correctly" refers to the ability to plot the relative lighter and darker areas seen in the images and produce a three-dimensional isometric drawing of the body.

The Leonardo speculation is moot because

1) the Shroud of Turin is from much earlier than Leonardo's time

2) the image proposed will not produce a 3D image

3) is based on presence of a chemical substance, a photographic emulsion, that is simply not found on the Shroud.

http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/davinci.htm

[The Luke]

The Leonardo speculation is moot because

1) the Shroud of Turin is from much earlier than Leonardo's time

2) the image proposed will not produce a 3D image

3) is based on presence of a chemical substance, a photographic emulsion, that is simply not found on the Shroud.[/b]

...dude, you're not reading my posts. I've already addressed each and every one of these points in detail.

If you have read my posts then your argument is simply dishonest:

1) When the Shroud was first presented by the Lirey family, the only person to examine it (Bishop) declared it an "obvious forgery"; washed the image off the cloth (by boiling) and even got the local artist who painted it to confess. So there is a history of the Lirey family hiring painters to fae Shrouds attested to by the Vatica itself. The Lirey family locked the crappy Shroud away for seventy years, only AFTER they hired Da Vinci did the new Shroud suddenly woo everyone who saw it and resist every attempt to destroy the image (boiling and washing).

2) The camera-obscura method does indeed produce a 3-D image. All the reproductions made with this technique are 3 dimensional. Trust me on this, I've seen it done with a camera obscura and I've even done it myself with a lensed camera obscura. I have a degree in experimental physics and I know what I'm talking about here... the Shroud image is a lensed camera obscura image produced by de-hydrative oxidation of linen threads by means of a photo-reactive salt (most probably a silver salt) then fixed with urea (urine).

3) You are right that NO EVIDENCE of a photographic emulsion has ever been found on the Turin Shroud... but there is a simple reason for this. The Vatican will not allow any test for heavy metals on the Shroud. These tests are no-invasive and non-destructive but the Vatican will nevr allow them.

I addressed ALL of these points in explicit detail with one of my last posts. Read it again:

...the ONLY test the Vatican will not allow on the Shroud of Turin is a silver assay. Is that proof enough that the Shroud is a silver nitrate photograph?

Let me give you some background...

The Lirey family first showed off the Shroud when the Lord of Lirey returned from the Crusades. The local bishop declared the Shroud an "obvious forgery" and claimed the artist commissioned to fake it was well known and had confessed, he boiled the Shroud twice in water and twice in oil effectively destroying the image.. then denied the Lirey family the right to declare the Shroud an official relic.

The Lirey family disagreed, and so chose to lock the Shroud away for seventy years (just long enough for everyone who saw it to die off).

Towards the very end of these seventy years the Lirey family hired a young artist to work for them... an artist named Leonardo, from the backwater town of Vinci.

Da Vinci worked away in secret, never producing enough commissioned works or family portraits to in any way justify the comfort and wealth his arrangement with his new patrons afforded him.

After a few years, the Lirey family decided to dust off their "obvious forgery" Shroud... but suddenly, low and behold, the Shroud is a wonder... it silences all critics: now neither boiling in oil nor water has any effect on the wondrous 3-D image... the Vatican declares the Shroud a relic, and the Lirey family become incredibly rich and influential via the pilgrimage trade.

Da Vinci, an atheist, spends the rest of his life thumbing his nose to the Vatican: adding heretical pagan/gnostic symbolism to his paintings; skipping out on Church commissions; performing autopsies and anatomical research in defiance of Church edict; harbouring his Cathar/Old-Believer mother for years; even openly practicing his unabashed homosexual lifestyle etc etc. ALL without rebuke or retaliation from the Church (whereas Michelangelo was tried for homosexuality with the threat of life with hard labour). 

However, in his old age, Da Vinci went back to live with the Lirey family... they took him in and treated him well, even though he did no further work for them, a very cosy arrangement. Da Vinci even died in the arms of the Lord of Lirey.


After his death, all of Da Vinci's codices (workbooks) were left to his delinquent apprentice (boyfriend?).


The apprentice promptly auctioned them off to the highest bidder... the Lirey family paid way over the odds to buy ONE (and only one) of these codices: the codex covering the years when Da Vinci first came to work for them... the years just before the Shroud's miraculous rebirth.

This codex has NEVER been recovered.



So stop the silly debunking... there is more than enough information in this post alone to allow anyone interested to do all the research needed to confirm Da Vinci made the Shroud of Turin.

Skimming over single paragraph encyclopedia entries and culling dishonest articles from Christian apologist websites does NOT constitute proper research... NOR does it entitle uninformed ideologues to Hector those (like me) who have properly researched the subject.


The Luke

[loco]

Luke,
The Shroud of Turin has never been proved to be a hoax, and it has never been replicated.

Luigi Garlaschelli, the scientist who claims to have finally replicated it and whose research was funded by the Union of Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics, said that he dabbled on the project for years, starting with handkerchief-size pieces of cloth and different combinations of acid and pigment, before making his shroud this summer.  Now that he knows how to do it, he claims that he could make another one in about a week, he estimated.

It looks like you and all those other guys who claim to have replicated the Shroud years ago are the fakes and the hoax.

[The Luke]

The Shroud of Turin has never been proved to be a hoax, and it has never been replicated.

...it can't be PROVEN to be a fake if the heavy metal assay test is never done.

Just like you can't PROVE my tea mug isn't the Holy Grail if you are never allowed to test it.

Luigi Garlaschelli, the scientist who claims to have finally replicated it and whose research was funded by the Union of Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics, said that he dabbled on the project for years, starting with handkerchief-size pieces of cloth and different combinations of acid and pigment, before making his shroud this summer.  Now that he knows how to do it, he could make another one in about a week, he estimated.

...he's using a bas relief method. It produces something akin to the Shroud, but lacks the 3D effect.

He's simpy wrong.
His method produces only a superficial likeness of the Shroud; there is no 3D information; no ability to resist washing and boiling; and the Shroud itself is chemically burned, not heat burned as in a bas relief etc etc I'm very skeptical of his research.


If you don't believe me maybe you should try making a Shroud yourself.

I can talk you through it if you like, it's not difficult. Once you accept the camera obscura as moot (available to Da Vinci) then you can just use a projector in a dark room incident upon a sheet treated with silver choride; silver iodide or silver nitrate. After a week of exposure, wash the sheet in stale urine (in the dark). Voila! A 3D Shroud of Turin replica.

Here's a link to a comparative photo of the negative of such a reproduction and the Shroud:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_dTSEBZ7tOe0/RpdCnII3KdI/AAAAAAAAAEg/rIeGRI5y6Do/s320/Shroud%26Allen.JPG


The Luke

[Colossus_500]

The Shroud of Turin (or Turin Shroud) is a linen cloth bearing the image of a man who appears to have been physically traumatized in a manner consistent with crucifixion. It is kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy.

The shroud is the subject of intense debate among some scientists, people of faith, historians, and writers regarding where, when, and how the shroud and its images were created. Many believe it is the cloth that covered Jesus of Nazareth when he was placed in his tomb and that his image was recorded on its fibers at the time of his proclaimed resurrection, probably by a powerful flash of light irradiating from his body. Skeptics contend the shroud is a medieval hoax, forgery, or the result of natural processes that are not yet understood.  As of today, no scientist can explain how the image was recorded unto the shroud or what method or technology was used. And, though some skeptics have tried, nobody as of today has been able to replicate it using any method or technology.



The image on the cloth has many peculiar and closely studied characteristics, for example, it is entirely superficial, not penetrating into the cloth fibers under the surface, so that the flax and cotton fibers are not colored; the image yarn is composed of discolored fibers placed side by side with non-discolored fibers so many striations appear. Thus the cloth is not simply dyed, though many other explanations, natural and otherwise, have been suggested for the image formation.
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/doclist.pdf

Many believers have hypothesized that the image on the shroud was produced by a side effect of the Resurrection of Jesus, purposely left intact as a rare physical aid to understanding and believing in Jesus' dual nature as man and God.  Some have asserted that the shroud collapsed through the glorified body of Jesus, pointing to certain X-ray-like impressions of the teeth and the finger bones. Others assert that radiation streaming from every point of the revivifying body struck and discolored every opposite point of the cloth, forming the complete image through a kind of supernatural pointillism using inverted shades of blue-gray rather than primary colors.

From http://www.shroud2000.com/FastFacts.html :

1353: The Shroud's fully documented history began in Western Europe when it was revealed by Geoffrey DeCharney in Lirey, France.

1532: The burial linen was severely damaged by fire in Chambery, France.

1534: The Shroud was repaired by the Poor Claire Nuns who were skilled in making textile repairs. The holes from the fire were patched and the entire cloth was attached to a backing cloth for support.

1898: The Shroud was photographed for the first time by Secondo Pia. These first pictures led to the discovery that the image on the cloth is actually a negative. In other words, the image becomes positive only when the light values are reversed in a photographic negative. This discovery startled the scientific community and stimulated worldwide interest.



1975: Air Force scientists John Jackson and Eric Jumper, using a sophisticated image enhancement analyzer (VP-8) designed for the space program, discovered the Shroud image contained encoded 3-D data not found in ordinary reflected light photographs. This discovery indicated that the cloth must have wrapped a real human figure at the time the image was formed.



1978: The Shroud was on public exhibit for the first time since 1933 and was displayed for six weeks. Over 3 million people passed through the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist to view it behind bullet proof glass. At the close of the exhibition, 40 scientists comprising the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), mostly from the United States, analyzed the Shroud for five continuous days (122 hours) working in shifts around the clock.

Tests performed in 1978 include:
Particle analysis
Chemical analysis
Blood analysis
Photo microscopy
Spectroscopy
X-ray radiography
Infra-red thermography
X-ray fluorescence spectrometry
Scanning photography from infra-red to ultra violet
And others 

1980: This same year, microscopist Walter McCrone who was not part of the Shroud Project was given several fibers to analyze. After finding iron oxide particles and a single particle of vermillion paint, he broke ranks with the Shroud scientists who had agreed to make all findings public the following year. McCrone proposed that the Shroud was a painting of red ochre paint created from iron oxide particles suspended in a thin binder solution. However McCrone's findings in no way agreed with any of the highly sophisticated tests conducted by two dozen other scientists. McCrone jumped the gun for the sake of getting his own publicity. His claims have all been dismissed.

1981: After three years analyzing the data The Shroud of Turn Research Project (STURP) made their findings public at an international conference in New London, CT. All the scientists agreed upon the following statement: "We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and give a positive test for serum albumin."

1988: The Shroud was carbon dated by three laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Arizona. They indcated a date range from between 1260 to 1390 making the cloth only about 700 years old. This earth shattering news seemed to contradict the conclusions of STURP which gave support to the Shroud's possible authenticity. This new data posed a great dilemma for proponents of the Shroud and further complicates an explanation for the Shroud's existence.

The Shroud cannot be explained in a medieval context because it demonstrates medical knowledge and artistic expertise unknown until centuries later. If it was not made by an artist then what is it? Was it a custom crucifixion performed to mimic that of Jesus? Knowledge of Roman crucifixion practices was totally unknown in the Middle Ages. There are dozens of reasons why a medieval date doesn't fit the evidence.

1997: Noted Israeli Botanist and a professor at Hebrew University, Avinoam Danin confirmed Dr. Alan Whanger's discovery of flower images on the Shroud. He also verified that several pollen were from plants that grow only around Jerusalem.

Sci/Tech - Plants shed light on Turin Shroud
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/411366.stm

2004: Discovery of the Shroud's double face image. Italian scientists, Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolio of Padova University were able to analyze scans of the backside of the Shroud after it was removed from the backing cloth. This had never been done before. The previous backing cloth had been attached since 1534 as part of the restoration following the fire of 1532. Examining the scans revealed faint superficial images of the face and hands. The image occurs only on the top surface of the fibers, similar to the front side of the Shroud but there is no coloring of the threads in between. This enhances the mystery of image formation and makes it that much more difficult to ascribe the Shroud to the work of an artist.

2005: Thermal Chemist, Dr. Raymond Rogers, retired Fellow with the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory proves using samples from the area cut for carbon 14 dating and samples from the main body of the Shroud that the sample cut in 1988 for C-14 dating was in fact a medieval reweave confirming Marino and Benford's hypothesis presented in 2000. Rogers also determined the evidence of a madder root dye used to blend in the color of newer threads with the more yellowed threads of the original Shroud. He also found cotton in the C-14 sample but not from the main body of the Shroud indicating both cotton and flax were used in the repair. Lastly and most importantly, he found that 37% of the vanillin remained intact in the lignon from the C-14 fibers whereas the vanillin content from the main body of the Shroud had decayed to 0%, similar to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Not only does this new evidence show that the carbon dating tests were severely flawed by dating an erroneous sample, but that the evidence also shows the main body of the Shroud is much older as indicated by the lack of vanillin. This critical research is precisely the kind of micro-chemical analysis the carbon dating labs were supposed to do in 1988, prior to taking the sample according to the original protocol, but failed to follow.

The carbon dating tests of 1988 have been thoroughly and completely invalidated by good science rather than the shoddy and arrogant effort demonstrated by the carbon labs in 1988. The cloud has been lifted.

Turin shroud 'older than thought'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210369.stm

2007: "The Fabric of Time" is released on DVD
Product Description
We live in a world where science and religion have often been on opposing sides. But is all that changing? For the first time, science and religion have come together to uncover an age-old mystery. Who was Jesus Christ? What did he actually look like? And can the story of his death and resurrection now be proven as true? Viewers around the world are in the jury box as newly found scientific discoveries are presented by scholars, scientists, and historians in an unflinching search for evidence -- nothing has been held back. Could it be that actual documentation of this amazing story is still available today? See the evidence and decide for yourself in THE FABRIC OF TIME.
http://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Time-Shroud-Turin/dp/B000MTEFNM/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1199330994&sr=8-1

What skeptics say:

"The debate over the origin and authenticity of the shroud steadily increased over the years. Many scientific investigations were carried out to get to the heart of the matter. Moreover, many scientific papers were written on the subject relating to the different theories concerning the structural make-up and image on the shroud. Most scientists took one of three prominent views; they either believed that the shroud was a "divine" creation or that the image was man made or that it was a natural phenomenon. The Shroud of Turin was without a doubt a mystery that challenged faith, science and understanding, one that rekindled man's inquisitive nature in a search for an explanation."
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/5.html

"Interestingly, Barbet also noticed that some of the blood stains flowed in unusual, almost unnatural directions on the arms. However, he realized that the stains were consistent with one's arms being outstretched and than lowered, much like someone's arms who had been crucified and then let down. If the blood flow was an artist's representation, it was masterfully conceived and skillfully carried out."
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/6.html

"Amazingly, no one has yet been able to successfully explain how the unique 3-D negative-like image on the shroud was constructed. In actuality that remains the biggest mystery."
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/9.html



"Rogers was further quoted in the article saying, "The chemistry says it was a real shroud, the blood spots on it are real blood, and the technology that was used to make that piece of cloth was exactly what Pliny the Elder reported fort his time." Pliny the Elder was an ancient Roman scientist and author who lived between 23 and 79 AD. Based on Rogers' research and historical data, the shroud has been accurately dated to around the time of Christ. The discovery rekindled the age-old debate of whether the shroud was or was not the actual burial cloth used to wrap Jesus' body. Chances are we will never know."
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/shroud_of_turin/10.html

What Loco says:

Christianity rests on Faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins and rose again.  Christianity does not rest on relics.  If you already have faith in Jesus, then you do not need the shroud.  If you do not have faith, then you probably will not believe even if presented with proof that the shroud is authentic.  However, the Shroud of Turin is real, scientists have studied it, and scientists have no other explanation. 

Nobody witnessed the actual resurrection.  Jesus' followers witnessed the empty tomb, the angels at the tomb, and later the risen Jesus himself.  Since nobody witnessed the resurrection itself, could God have left us a photograph of the event itself?  Maybe so.  The evidence is there.  Is the Shroud of Turin the the cloth that covered Jesus of Nazareth or is it the greatest forgery ever made, during the middle ages, using technology unknown to us even today?  You decide.

More:

http://factsplusfacts.com/theed.htm

http://www.shroudstory.com/

http://www.shroud.com/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0409_040409_TVJesusshroud.html

http://e-forensicmedicine.net/Washed.htm

Thanks, Loco!  :-)

Your commentary on this topic is EXCELLENT!

[The Luke]

I don't really understand this thread...

Can any of the Shroud-believers reading this explain why the front image and back images on the Shroud are different sizes?

Was Jesus 6% bigger from the front than he was from the back? The image on the Shroud is...

Also, why is the face double-exposed?


I know how I'd explain this: different objective distances for the two exposures and Da Vinci using a hooded figure front and then re-exposing with his own face (the face of "Jesus" on the Shroud is an exact match for ALL of Da Vinci's facial measurements)... but how do the true-believers explain this?


The Luke

[Government_Controlled]

I know how I'd explain this: different objective distances for the two exposures and Da Vinci using a hooded figure front and then re-exposing with his own face (the face of "Jesus" on the Shroud is an exact match for ALL of Da Vinci's facial measurements)... but how do the true-believers explain this?


The Luke

YOU dummy, haven't you ever heard of the ole saying "everyone gots a twin in this world".    

[The Luke]

YOU dummy, haven't you ever heard of the ole saying "everyone gots a twin in this world".    

Do you know that Da Vinci had a habit of using is own face in many of his paintings... the Mona Lisa is a prime example.


The Luke

[Government_Controlled]

Do you know that Da Vinci had a habit of using is own face in many of his paintings... the Mona Lisa is a prime example.


The Luke

Well, that still doesn't mean Jesus couldn't have looked like him, eh?

[tu_holmes]

Well, that still doesn't mean Jesus couldn't have looked like him, eh?

We're saying Jesus was a white guy and didn't look like he was from the middle east?

Long hair and everything huh?

[Government_Controlled]

We're saying Jesus was a white guy and didn't look like he was from the middle east?

Long hair and everything huh?

YOU are just about as dumb as your counterpart, huh? Didn't YOU KNOW THAT JEWS CAN BE BLOND HAIRED AND BLUE EYED? Sheesh! This must be the DUMBEST BUNCH of people lumped into one board I have ever seen!



GC/DEA_AGENT