Shroud of Davinci

Well, saw a special of National Geographic of The Shroud of Turin. Basically said/found the same thing everyone has found, it is a fake made by Leonardo Davinci. Made by hot metal on cloth, with Vermillion and red ochre for more color, not human body stuff. The material itself is only 700 years old, and Davinci had done stuff like this before with his other paintings. He has several that if you xray a regular painting from the era you can see the paint strokes, different colors, but with Da Vinci there are none, nothing, nada. He used a misting technique or something to make his Last Supper Painting and his last painting Hohn the Baptist painting, and also to make the Turin.

Now, the material of the Shroud is older then Leo, but back then it was easy to get old linen, some of the linen had been used for hundreds of years, so getting linen 60-100 years older was no problem. Also, if you wrap a cloth around the face of a body you get the nose, eyes, and ears. But the SHroud has details, something that isn't possible in real life.

Also, if you look at the Shroud, Jesus has no neck. Strange but true...... Also, the head is smaller then should be, it would be like someone with a 5 year old head on a 30 year old body.

Also, a guy makes hundreds of Shrouds all the time. He creates the exact same effect, even the 3d effect found by Los Alamos Research Center. Is is hard to do? No, all you do is make a flat metal face, heat it up, and lay a cloth on it. Exact copy, then use red ocher or Vermillion and voila, you get the same colors and technique.

Also, the Self Portrait of Davinci and the Shroud are done the exact same way, and look the same. Both came out at the same time, and both owned by the same people.

In other words, Hahahahahahaha funny isn't it? A heretic who used science and reality is worshipped by the church every May 4th, or Shroud Day. Also, Davinci is known as the first photographer, long before kodak came out, using alchemy, which was a sin. But his greatest masterpiece is WORSHIPPED by the church, the Shroud of Turin.

Well, it would be funny if it was true... but new tests prove it's at least 700 years older than DaVinci's time.

abc.net.au...

It has been recently proven to be at least 1300 years old... so I don,t know where Da Vinci fits in the picture. It's not because he did a few bizarre religious paintings which were illustrating his beliefs on Jesus Christ that he HAS to have made the Shroud.

And no... Da Vinci was not the first photographer before the technology was invented. None of his inventions point out to such belief.

the Vanillin test has a problem because it could hardly FIND any Vanillin in the shorud. From what I have read Rodgers (who did the Vanillin test) did not think the fire of 1532 affected the cloth any. Roger previously showed that the shroud was never exposed to temperatures above 250-275°C because the crystalline structure of the fibers would have been changed and this is not the case. But it is possible that during the fire in 1532 the shroud was exposed to temperatures between 100°C and 200°C so that the rate of vanillin decreased rapidly.

sorry, but try again mythatsabigprobe and this time do a little research
www.hypotyposeis.org...

not to mention they have found plant fibers, i dont know what to call it, that would date it back to the time of Jesus and in Jerusalem.

They found Vermillion, a plant, and red ocher, used to make more colors.

Of course no one points out that a guy makes hundreds a day and sells them as souviners(spelled wrong) They look the same, feel the same, are the same. He did it just like Leo did, hot metal on linen and using Vermillion and red ocher to add color.

Also, again, if you put a cloth on a human head you get nose, ears, and eyes, but the shroud has the entire head, so again, BS.

Also Also, again, Leo is a great Genius, he made paintings without painting them. A skill mastered by no one else, ever. If you xray a painting you can pick out paint strokes, colors, so forth. But a couple of Leo Paintings, like the LS and John the Baptist, none, nada, nothing.

Also Also Also, again, his self portrait was done the same time as the ST, and the same way, hot metal on linen. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble.

Originally posted by Jehosephat
sorry, but try again mythatsabigprobe and this time do a little research
www.hypotyposeis.org...

peer reviewed scientific paper vs a non-chemist's opinion.

While I will not say that the peer reviewed article proves the RC date of the shroud is incorrect, it certainly holds more weight than the counter-article written by a self proclaimed non-chemist. To say the counter article disproves the peer reviewed paper is a fallacy of appeal to authority.

the Vanillin test has a problem because it could hardly FIND any Vanillin in the shorud.

Actually, the abstract of the article by rogers states:

"Any heating at the time of the fire would decrease the amount of vanillin in the lignin as a function of the temperature and time heated; however, different amounts of vanillin would have been lost in different areas. No samples from any location on the shroud gave the vanillin test.

Because the shroud and other very old linens do not give the vanillin test, the cloth must be quite old. It is thus very unlikely that the linen was produced during medieval times." (emphasis added)

And, to note, the conclusion drawn by rogers in the paper was simply that a new RC dating test should be conducted with greater care given to choosing the samples.



[edit on 30-4-2005 by Raphael_UO]

[edit on 30-4-2005 by Raphael_UO]

wow, so you competly discredit the author because he is not a "Scientist"

Then why the heck are we even bothering posting on here?

YOu obviously missing the point about the 1532 fire. The shroud was previosu BOILED in oil by early bararic attempts to discover it's mystery, and even in the vase it was found in a fire could increase the temprature of the shroud to 100-200 degrees without burning it, but affect the levels of vanillian would have been drastically reduced by this event to allow it to be properly tested.

finally the whole point of the article was to disprove mythatsabigprobe commnent and the dating Rodgers test came up with. But I agree, RC dating should be done, on multiple samples including areas of the image, and have double blind lab results done.

I completely get a kick out folks who try to prove or disprove this.

If you rely on something like a clothe to bolster your faith, you haven't had much of a relartionship with Christ. Stop worrying about the cloth and start worrying about that fact.

If you are wasting your time trying to disprove any potential evidence of Christ, you are obsessed with that which you claim to not believe.

Reality check, people. Whether it is real or a fake changes nothing on either side.

Originally posted by Jehosephat
sorry, but try again mythatsabigprobe and this time do a little research
www.hypotyposeis.org...

Originally posted by Jehosephat
finally the whole point of the article was to disprove mythatsabigprobe commnent and the dating Rodgers test came up with.

Well I'm flattered that you're going to so much effort to disprove my 'comment' but I didn't really make a comment, just provided a link to the latest findings.

In the future I'll be sure to do my research in religious blogs before being foolish enough to believe what accredited scientists write in peer reviewed journals. I mean, just because that guy spent his career as a chemist with Los Alamos National Laboratories and was part of a team researching the shroud since 1978, actually collected the samples that were radiocarbon tested in 1988, and actually performed all these microchemical assays, is no reason to believe him over a blogger!

In fact, I'm not even going to read those silly science papers anymore, I'm going straight to crystalinks and billyshouseofblogs to do all my research! Thanks for setting me straight!

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
If you rely on something like a clothe to bolster your faith, you haven't had much of a relartionship with Christ. Stop worrying about the cloth and start worrying about that fact.

If you are wasting your time trying to disprove any potential evidence of Christ, you are obsessed with that which you claim to not believe.

Reality check, people. Whether it is real or a fake changes nothing on either side.

Great post TC!

JTL, no one who "worships" a piece of cloth is a true Christian. Even the Catholic Church takes no official position on whether the shroud is genuine. Your constant attempts to slander and discredit religion are really becoming tiresome.

You are wrong DJ, for past 500 years the Catholic Chuch has had Shroud Day on May 4th. They worship this thing like they worship the Virgin Mary, not suppose to, but do. Also, a hint at Leo's greatness, he even quoted a passage in the bible about worshiping christ and not his burial shroud.

Also, not to disprove the shroud, but to tell the people about Leonardo, the greatest mind of his time, and really of almost any time. This man invented/designed helicopters, airplanes, camera, tank, machine gun, car, things not continued for 100s of years.

Also, religous people say this proves Jesus, so to tell me I am wrong/stupid for proving who made the shroud is well, wrong. People, you can't say "This proves Jesus existed" in one breath then in the next say "Go to hell for trying to find out who made the shroud, we don't believe in the shroud, go to hell." is hypocritical.

I posted this for the Greatness of Leonardo, not to disprove Jesus or whatever, science/history did that already. I just wanted to make sure more people knew how great the Brain of the Ren. was, how great a man Leo was, and how great a Inventor/creator he was. He painted paintings without PAINTING THEM! As said, if you xray a painting, brush strokes show, but a couple of his, none show, he didn't "paint" them, but he did! HOW! We can't do this today yet he was able to do so!

Im about to sell my own "hand-made Shroud" on Ebay , as well as a lot of 25 botled souls, that i have captured myself during my "inner-lighting-astro-reptilian-omegan-Catholic-tongue-speaking" journeys.

WARNIGN: if you open the botles, and the souls escape, dont complain its empty.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I completely get a kick out folks who try to prove or disprove this.

If you rely on something like a clothe to bolster your faith, you haven't had much of a relartionship with Christ. Stop worrying about the cloth and start worrying about that fact.

If you are wasting your time trying to disprove any potential evidence of Christ, you are obsessed with that which you claim to not believe.

Reality check, people. Whether it is real or a fake changes nothing on either side.

It is just something very interesting to discuss. Also, it is interesting because of who it is supposed to be, and I am sure you know why it is very compelling. If it were re-tested and dated back to around 30 AD imagine what that would mean. Although not real proof, it would imply that Jesus did exist, and something crazy must have happened in order for that image to be burnt onto the cloth as it is. Although, I agree, if you base your faith on this than you really have no faith.

yeah I heard this davinci thing. Basicley he live in the church of Turin for a decade or so, creating the perfect hoax. Interesting side note the church of Turin also houses Davincis only know self portraits. And even if it isn't DaVincis its far to young and the mans features aren't distorted as they should be

Vegemite, I already mentioned the self portrait thing, and how it was doen the same way the shroud was. But unlike the shroud, Leo didn't use red ochre or Vermillion to make his self portrait more colorful. Also, his self portrait and the Face on the Shroud look alot alike, like how the Mona Lisa and the Self Portrait look alike.(it is said Mona Lisa is Leo's image of himself if he was a woman)

And no one mentions that May 4th is Shroud Day for the church for past 500 years. SO it seems they worship the Shroud, like how they worship Mary, even though you aren't suppose to.

And as mentioned, Leo being the genius that he is, quoted from the bible about "worshiping Jesus and not his burial Shroud." Strange don't you think?

Man, why can't we have another Leo? Or another Edison? Another Benjamin Franklin? Where have all the great minds gone? Still wanna know how he painted the LS and John the Baptist without painting them. The theory is some misting technique, but well, IDK.

BaasetNoir, can I buy a soul or two? That way I can sell them to satan and mine for my wish.(I would in a heart beat, man, my wish is better then any other, far better then the normal immortality or world domination)

Jamesthelesser,

You are misinformed on the Catholic church. First off, no one worships the shroud or Mary, they are celebrated. Do people worship Martin Luther King Jr. because we give him a day during the year named after him? NO! We celebrate his life; what he accomplished. Some may take the celebrating of Mary a little too far, but that isn't what was intended. You seem to have a lot of hatred towards Christianity, or perhaps Catholicism in general. May I ask why?

James the Lesser, the Catholic Church has stopped recognizing the Shroud as purely authentic in the '80s. While they never admitted it to be a fake, they took the position that the Shroud MIGHT be authentic, but it also could not be. This is an usual PR move on their behalf.

By the way, I'm quite mystified by that rabbit with a pancake on its head... I saw that at some other places on the internet, but I still don't get the joke... perhaps I'm too slow. What's this about?

[edit on 30/4/05 by Echtelion]

Originally posted by Jehosephat
wow, so you competly discredit the author because he is not a "Scientist"

I did not, I said it held less weight then the Roger's paper.

finally the whole point of the article was to disprove mythatsabigprobe commnent and the dating Rodgers test came up with. But I agree, RC dating should be done, on multiple samples including areas of the image, and have double blind lab results done.

That you used that article to disprove Roger's dating is a fallacy of appeal to authority. As was mythatsabigprobe use of the article to disprove the RC testing.

If anything, it is simply information to be weighed when deciding the truth.

Roger's paper did not disprove that the RC testing previously done was incorrect. It said that it could be, why he thought so, and that additional, more careful RC testing was needed.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
You are wrong DJ, for past 500 years the Catholic Chuch has had Shroud Day on May 4th. They worship this thing like they worship the Virgin Mary, not suppose to, but do. Also, a hint at Leo's greatness, he even quoted a passage in the bible about worshiping christ and not his burial shroud.

I've gotta disagree here. I went to Catholic schools for twelve years. Many of those school days started with Mass.
This was prior to the 80's. I don't remember celebrating Shroud Day even once.

Maybe they only celebrate in Turin