Do you think that The Shroud of Turin is a hoax?

I just recently saw a documentary on this subject:)
The aim of the documentary was to findout if they could explain it.
They had alot of trouble at first.
But eventually they managed to figure out an age and they realised it was from the renaissance at the earliest.
It was made by an extremely talented artist.
 
Originally posted by Joshua's Generation
SO talented he 'encoded' 3-dimensional data in the cloth, as well..
Click to expand...
Actually the three dimensional aspect is automatic when doing a bas-releif rubbing. A technique that was not uncommon at the time.

~Raithere
 
Dude seriously, I wish I could give you this documentary, its been totally debunked, the mystery is over, we KNOW it is a hoax, this doesn't mean you can't be a christian, go ahead, just don't claim the shroud is anymore than it is.
 
lol - I love those stories in some of the UK newspapers where "images of Jesus have been found in a lemon" or "an image of the Virgin Mary has been found in a shadow between an old ladder and a fence".

Of all the patterns--of all the shadows--or all the markings, and of all the billions upon billions of natural images in the world, some are bound to have a striking resemblance to those of of religeous images. And it would take the commercial power of a religeous image to warrant the media hype to let the public know about it.

If the billions of people of the world spent their time looking for images 'somewhere' of Sylvester Stallone or George Bush, they WOULD find them.
 
Originally posted by Joshua's Generation
Yes...

SO talented he 'encoded' 3-dimensional data in the cloth, as well..

(/sarcasm)

;)
Click to expand...

I hate this stuff.....Let's assume this shroud was indeed the peace of cloth that Jesus body was wrapped in during crucifiction. What is the importance of that.....Are Christians now going to become more pagans and start worshipping a peace of cloth in the hope that it touched Jesus body. And I though the christians say that Jesus is always alive and is "god forbid" god himself. Is god that poor that the only thing he can leave in his memory is an old rag??????
 
lol - I love those stories in some of the UK newspapers where "images of Jesus have been found in a lemon" or "an image of the Virgin Mary has been found in a shadow between an old ladder and a fence".
Click to expand...

Did you see the one in the Sun newspaper with a picture of E.T in a tree stump? Quite cool! E.T was here, he really did phone home and bugger off back to space!! :D

Yes the shroud of turin is a hoax and it bears validity to a lot of my points on this forum, (especially science vs religion)...

Religion finds something that looks good. It is instantly attributed to being jesus on cloth and hung up as a holy item. Nobody analysed, questioned or studied it. They just said "it is this" and put it on the wall.

Science studies to find the facts.
 
I saw a show a long time ago and the scientists were saying that the face would be twice the size than the normal sized face because the cloth would have to cover both sides of the face instead of directly perfect image.
 
Special thanks goes out to carbon-14 for helping us figure out the date of things like this.
 
I too saw a documentary that pretty much confirmed that the shroud is a hoax. The authors claimed that Leonardo da Vinci is the prime suspect.
 
Originally posted by Charles Fleming
'encoded' 3-dimensional data in the cloth

What is this?? [/B]
Click to expand...

The second odd property of the Shroud is the three-dimensional information allegedly embedded in its image.22 There is indeed some three-dimensional information contained in the image, but it is very crude, requiring much fudging and a number of blatant, scientifically-impermissible "corrections" to produce anything resembling a human face and body.23 Today, however, computer-generated 3-D images and videos, and three-dimensional models of the Man on the Shroud's body and face, are widely available; both have been used to illustrate depictions of the Shroud's formation in non-skeptical, pro-authenticity television programs. The outrageous statements, then and now, that such 3-D information is the result of a paranormal or miraculous burst of radiation or flow of vapors from the body--and was capable of "regenerating faith in a skeptical age"--are so contrary to scientific knowledge and common sense that their origin can only be ascribed to a religiously-inspired zealotry that separates a person from his or her analytical abilities.

Both the apparent "photographic negative" and crude "embedded 3-D information" properties of the Shroud of Turin can easily be explained by simply understanding how the artist created it. Although a direct painting on linen using red ochre pigment in a tempera binder17 cannot be absolutely ruled out as an hypothesis for the Shroud's creation, it is much more likely that the Shroud was constructed using a rubbing technique on a bas-relief model.18 Joe Nickell was the first person to suggest this method of producing the Shroud. He observed that contact imprints from bodies are invariably grossly distorted, and hypotheses involving a vapor or radiation would cause the image to penetrate the cloth, unlike the superficial Shroud image that is observed. After experimenting with various techniques, the Shroud artist prepared a suitable mixture of pigments and tempera binder, molded a wet linen sheet over the bas-relief he had constructed, and used a dauber (also termed a pounce or tamper) to apply the mixture to the surface of the linen.


The bas-relief rubbing method automatically produces not only an apparent negative image (that is, one without true photographic quality), but also an image with crude three-dimensional properties. Unlike a photographic negative, in which light and dark are reversed, a bas-relief rubbing produces a negative in which topographically high areas become dark and low areas become light. This is because the topographically higher areas receive more of the pigment and lower areas receive less. This is precisely what we observe on the Shroud: the nose, mustache, beard, hair, brow ridge, and cheek bones on the bas-relief were raised relative to the sunken eyes, the space between the hair and face, and the area below the nose and mustache, so the former areas are darker on the Shroud image and the latter areas lighter. A genuine photographic negative of the Shroud's faux-photographic negative image--that is, a faux-positive--looks appealingly natural and life-like, if one ignores the white blood and hair. Furthermore, as the pigment is applied, there is a gradation of pigment and binder density from topographically higher to lower areas, producing the tonal variation that creates a crude three-dimensional quality.
Click to expand...
- http://www.csicop.org/articles/shroud/index2.html

~Raithere
 
I believe it may be a hoax, but more likely it is just a piece of cloth with a primative imaging technique created for the fun of it.

It was not necessarily created to fake people out. It looks to me like it was something fun for Leonardo (or someone else) to do. Doesn't a "Hoax" have to be something purposly designed to trick naive people? People believe all kinds of silly things that were never Hoaxes? Remember the so-called "face" on Mars?

When was it first claimed to be of Jesus? I think it was many years after it was created.
 
Remember the so-called "face" on Mars?
Click to expand...

What's that supposed to mean? Using the term 'remember' is as if to imply it's an old solved mystery. It isn't. The only problem concerning the face is the fact we can't see the other side due to shadow. NASA refused to land anywhere near Cydonia for their own reasons and as such the whole 'face' issue remains unanswered. Currently there's nothing to suggest it's natural. Ok there's not a lot to suggest it isn't natural aside from mathematical variants but unless NASA decide to land in Cydonia we'll never know.

And how would it be 'silly'? What's silly about a big alien face smiling to any planets in the vicinity? Or maybe Jesus put it there on his way to meet his father? :D
 
Originally posted by Qaz
I believe it may be a hoax, but more likely it is just a piece of cloth with a primative imaging technique created for the fun of it.
Click to expand...
It seems to have been deliberately made to represent the death shroud of Jesus. Whether it was initially created to fool people or be an artistic representation it seems that it was deliberately displayed for this purpose as it was initially discredited in the 14th century: " Unlike many shrouds of Jesus known from the Middle Ages, the Shroud of Turin was pronounced by a contemporary fourteenth-century Catholic bishop in France to be a fake, since his predecessor as Bishop of Troyes, "after diligent inquiry and examination, discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed."" - http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/as/schafersman.html

Originally posted by SnakeLord
What's that supposed to mean? Using the term 'remember' is as if to imply it's an old solved mystery. It isn't. The only problem concerning the face is the fact we can't see the other side due to shadow. NASA refused to land anywhere near Cydonia for their own reasons and as such the whole 'face' issue remains unanswered. Currently there's nothing to suggest it's natural. Ok there's not a lot to suggest it isn't natural aside from mathematical variants but unless NASA decide to land in Cydonia we'll never know.
Click to expand...
Quite wrong:

The Mars Global Surveyor re-photographed the "face" on April 6th, 1998:
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD1/

And again on July 24, 2002:
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA04100
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA04100_modest.jpg

It is, quite obviously, a simply a geographic feature that only looked like a face from a particular vantage due to shadows formed at a particular time of day.

~Raithere
 
Quite wrong:
Click to expand...

Umm not quite wrong. NASA didn't land anywhere near Cydonia and refuse to do so. And those pictures show nothing and prove nothing. Land on Cydonia then you have proof- which is what i said.

I have been an amateur photographer for years- and it's often the case where pictures look nothing like how they would if you were up close. It could very well be a pile of rocks or it could very well be something else- at least get good pictures then come talk to me. Again i state: Land on Cydonia then you have the facts.

Before you keep posting: 'quite wrong' to everything i say why not read the fucking post first? What was it you said to me about assumption?

You're starting to sound like a Christian. Where we can't just accept anything at truth instant dismissal is just as bad. For the third time: Land on Cydonia- problem solved. They have the ability to get up close and personal- if it answers a question i'd believe it to be fundamental.

New: that only looked like it wasn't a face from a particular vantage due to shadows formed at a particular time of day.

~Raithere
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top