Is the Shroud of Turin Authentic or a Hoax?

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

piginally posted by Holodeckie [/i]
http://www.cosmictribune.com/ct/Extraterrestrial/Arch/2003/0327.html
I'd only exhaust myself to offer explanations. [/QUOTE]

Actually, you linking a UFO site is just about all the explanation we need.

 

[Holodeckie]

Ridicule Even Among Professionals

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
And the bull****ometer goes to red when you say things like "Scientists are a very organized group who agree to agree". You, sir, apparently have had no involvement whatsoever with the scientific community.

You came to mind today with your above opinion as I researched H. pylori.

The article I found began -- A young Australian doctor was ridiculed when he made claims about H. pylori and ulcers over 20 years ago.

The fellow's name was Barry Marshall.

To understand where I am coming from, research H. pylori and the progress they have made since admitting it existed. Consider this fellow trying to tell them 20 years ago and being laughed away, ridiculed, shouted down. How many patients have suffered because some expert with a bigger mouth, a better intellectual Bullometer loud scale, and belief in his/her rightness shouted him down, even with the lab results he got.

--

On the Shroud and Leonardo, I'm reading a very interesting book I found this past week about the knowledge of the Templars and why exactly Leonardo persistently hinted repetitive things in his commissioned works of art.

Separately, on the web, I serendipitously came across a blurb that in one of his self-portraits some "experts" have determined they see skin cancer on his face. I wonder if that was on the shroud?

One thing about the book, they point out that the head was severed from the body on the shroud which they feel points to issues and hints about John the Baptist.

 

[quantumcarl]

exspurts and spacimen

Originally posted by Holodeckie

Separately, on the web, I serendipitously came across a blurb that in one of his self-portraits some "experts" have determined they see skin cancer on his face. I wonder if that was on the shroud?

The "experts" you mention are preforming a bogus diagnosis from a tempura portrait that's over 600 years old... please direct us to the article.

The shroud would not show any detail concerning the skin of the face. This is apparent when you think about the medium that has recorded the face (very crude photography and its in negative form) and because the face is a quickly constructed mask, probably made out of grog (sandy, quick drying clay) and the mask extends to the mid-chest of the dead body that DaVinci used as his model and his subject. The full-mask is a representation of an older DaVinci or an older Christ... give or take a few beard hairs.

Originally posted by Holodeckie

One thing about the book, they point out that the head was severed from the body on the shroud which they feel points to issues and hints about John the Baptist.

Of the three books I have read concerning the shroud there is no mention of the model's head being severed.

The mask Leonardo fashioned in his bid to fool the church was fitted over the head of the deceased body. The body was borrowed from the Turin Morgue. The first session of photography took so long that Da Vinci only had time to do the frontal image.

At the next opportunity, Da Vinci was able to procure another body but it was different from the first. Subsequently you will find that the back side image of the body is about 5 inches taller than the front side image.

Middle Age minds didn't notice stuff like that. They only saw what they were told was a miracle emblazoned into some antique Egyptian linen.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Holodeckie
You came to mind today with your above opinion as I researched H. pylori.

The article I found began -- A young Australian doctor was ridiculed when he made claims about H. pylori and ulcers over 20 years ago.

The fellow's name was Barry Marshall.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

At the time, Barry didn't have that amount of evidence. Today they do. Science doesn't always work in the short run, but that's not what we are talking about. We are talking the long run, where the motivations of new scientists and researchers are to make a name - like Barry Marshall. If Barry hadn't done the research and made his case he wouldn't be known for it today. He was exonerated, unlike the hoax known as the Shroud of Turin.

What amazes me is the extent people will go to, to convince themselves of things which have little or no proof, which defy common sense, which go against reason. For the shroud to have the image it does, the image would have had to have been projected onto the shroud, while the shroud was stretched flat, not while it was wrapped around a body. Had it been formed while wrapped around a body, the image would not have been photo-like, but distorted, just the same way police gathered fingerprints are much wider than the fingertips they come from.

Also, have you notived that the image is similar to the European idea of what Christ looked like - European, not a middle eastern Jew.

If you have any desire to find the truth, then think it thru. Understanding the shroud is a hoax doesn't attack christianity. It only acknowledges that there were unscrupulous individuals in the middle ages, just like today.

 

[Holodeckie]

Originally posted by radagast
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

What amazes me is the extent people will go to, to convince themselves of things which have little or no proof, which defy common sense, which go against reason.

If you have any desire to find the truth, then think it thru. Understanding the shroud is a hoax doesn't attack christianity. It only acknowledges that there were unscrupulous individuals in the middle ages, just like today.

Understanding the shroud may not be a hoax also would not be a vote for Christianity, nor would it be proof of Jesus. The head appeared severed. It would be a better understanding of phenomenon that scientific tradition is trying to use scientific tradition to explain.

One fellow calls the principle Perpetuation of Error.

http://www.pride-net.com/physics/Errors/index.html

You'll note how he expresses the challenge he got from other professionals among his other web pages.

Whatever it is, I do think there were fellows who knew who were trying to communicate a message about truths not allowed at the time due to religious notions. To dismiss it on carbon dating alone as a hoax is to end research into truth.

I don't know why people assume Christianity as the reason or unreasonableness in not being satisfied with the results of carbon dating on the Shroud. That is inaccurate in the reason for my stance on it.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Holodeckie
Understanding the shroud may not be a hoax also would not be a vote for Christianity, nor would it be proof of Jesus. The head appeared severed. It would be a better understanding of phenomenon that scientific tradition is trying to use scientific tradition to explain.

One fellow calls the principle Perpetuation of Error.

http://www.pride-net.com/physics/Errors/index.html

You'll note how he expresses the challenge he got from other professionals among his other web pages.

Whatever it is, I do think there were fellows who knew who were trying to communicate a message about truths not allowed at the time due to religious notions. To dismiss it on carbon dating alone as a hoax is to end research into truth.

I don't know why people assume Christianity as the reason or unreasonableness in not being satisfied with the results of carbon dating on the Shroud. That is inaccurate in the reason for my stance on it.

My question is, how many times do we have to look at a fake before accepting it is a fake? The Shroud of Turin is a hoax, and looking at it more isn't going to change that fact.