Shroud of Turin To Be Tested Again

[SkepticalThinker]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-052008-shroud-of-turin-may21,0,6786081.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-052008-shroud-of-turin-may21,0,6786081.story?page=1&track=rss)

What do you guys think?

[The people's Opium]

I'm pretty sure I watched a channel 4 documentary about this a few months ago in which the original Oxford scientists found that the carbon monoxide had no effect on the carbon dating process.

However, regardless of the result I can imagine that there'll be an avalanche of fundies who all use this test as 'proof of God' whether or not it proves anything.

[Derec]

Something stinks. There is no John Jackson listed in the directory of University of Colorado in Colorado Springs.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

I find the theory interesting, even if not for the sake of the shroud itself. Believers obsessing about the shroud might bring about sharpened criteria for cloth dating.

[Toto]

I suspect this thread will end up in Science and Skepticism.

Here's Dr. Jackson (http://www.shroudofturin.com/DirMain1.html):

John P.Jackson, Ph.D.
The director and founder of [Turin Shroud Center of Colorado], John P. Jackson, was the leader of the 1978, thirty-person plus, high tech scientific American expedition that examined the Shroud first hand. He holds a Ph.D. in physics from the United States Naval Postgraduate School in 1972 and a B.A. in Religious Studies from the College of Santa Fe in 1976. He has held faculty professor positions at both the U.S. Air Force Academy and the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. He was a scientist at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory in Albuquerque, New Mexico and a senior scientist at Kaman Sciences... as well as a part-time honorarium professor at the University of Colorado.

So he was a part-time "honorarium" professor at UC - not sure what that means.

[Roger Pearse]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-052008-shroud-of-turin-may21,0,6786081.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-052008-shroud-of-turin-may21,0,6786081.story?page=1&track=rss)

What do you guys think?

The Shroud of Turin was very profitable commercially to quite a lot of people, prior to it being exposed (although not to the Catholic church, as far as I know, since expositions of the shroud were very infrequent). I think of all the books written on it, for one. Indeed I used to have one, treating "could it be" as equivalent to "it must be", on and on.

Of course that industry collapsed after the C-14 results. There must have been a fair few publishers regretting the lost cash-flow. Could they restart it somehow, they must have wondered? It wouldn't matter on what pretext; just sow a bit of uncertainty and see if they can milk the gullible, that would be the point of it all.

Now that they've manufactured some excuses for 'questioning' the C-14 results, the same publishers can repackage the same old speculative stuff, and sell it with a couple of new chapters.

Follow the money, that's what I say. I think that all this is a commercially-driven scam, of the same kind as the endless republication of the Archko volume ("Some deny it is authentic... buy our book and decide for yourself!!!"). For who else benefits from it?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[candyfloss]

Have any "shroud apologists" ever explained why the face and body are not distorted properly to have been wrapped around a corpse?

[Solo]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-052008-shroud-of-turin-may21,0,6786081.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-052008-shroud-of-turin-may21,0,6786081.story?page=1&track=rss)

What do you guys think?

The Shroud of Turin was very profitable commercially to quite a lot of people, prior to it being exposed (although not to the Catholic church, as far as I know, since expositions of the shroud were very infrequent). I think of all the books written on it, for one. Indeed I used to have one, treating "could it be" as equivalent to "it must be", on and on.

Of course that industry collapsed after the C-14 results. There must have been a fair few publishers regretting the lost cash-flow. Could they restart it somehow, they must have wondered? It wouldn't matter on what pretext; just sow a bit of uncertainty and see if they can milk the gullible, that would be the point of it all.

Now that they've manufactured some excuses for 'questioning' the C-14 results, the same publishers can repackage the same old speculative stuff, and sell it with a couple of new chapters.

Follow the money, that's what I say. I think that all this is a commercially-driven scam, of the same kind as the endless republication of the Archko volume ("Some deny it is authentic... buy our book and decide for yourself!!!"). For who else benefits from it?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Of course it is a scam and a well-know one at that. Here is a part of the Shroud Entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia (made in 1912):



{Of the famous 1898 'photograph' proof of the Shroud genuinenness}

The image upon the Shroud was therefore a natural negative and as such completely beyond the comprehension or the skill of any medieval forger.

Plausible as this contention appeared, a most serious historical difficulty had meanwhile been brought to light. Owing mainly to the researches of Canon Ulysse Chevalier a series of documents was discovered which clearly proved that in 1389 the Bishop of Troyes appealed to Clement VII, the Avignon Pope then recognized in France, to put a stop to the scandals connected to the Shroud preserved at Lirey. It was, the Bishop declared, the work of an artist who some years before had confessed to having painted it but it was then being exhibited by the Canons of Lirey in such a way that the populace believed that it was the authentic shroud of Jesus Christ. The pope, without absolutely prohibiting the exhibition of the Shroud, decided after full examination that in the future when it was shown to the people, the priest should declare in a loud voice that it was not the real shroud of Christ, but only a picture made to represent it. The authenticity of the documents connected with this appeal is not disputed. Moreover, the grave suspicion thus thrown upon the relic is immensely strengthened by the fact that no intelligible account, beyond wild conjecture, can be given of the previous history of the Shroud or its coming to Lirey.

An animated controversy followed and it must be admitted that though the immense preponderance of opinion among learned Catholics (see the statement by P.M. Baumgarten in the "Historiches Jahrbuch", 1903, pp. 319-43) was adverse to the authenticity of the relic, still the violence of many of its assailants prejudiced their own cause. In particular the suggestion made of blundering or bad faith on the part of those who photographed were quite without excuse. From the scientific point of view, however, the difficulty of the "negative" impression on the cloth is not so serious as it seems. This Shroud like the others was probably painted without fraudulent intent to aid the dramatic setting of the Easter sequence:

Dic nobis Maria, quid vidisti in via
Angelicos testes, sudarium et vestes.

As the word sudarium suggested, it was painted to represent the impression made by the sweat of Christ, i.e. probably in a yellowish tint upon unbrilliant red. This yellow stain would turn brown in the course of centuries, the darkening process being aided by the effects of fire and sun. Thus, the lights of the original picture would become the shadow of Paleotto's reproduction of the images on the shroud is printed in two colours, pale yellow and red. As for the good proportions and æsthetic effect, two things may be noted. First, that it is highly probable that the artist used a model to determine the length and position of the limbs, etc.; the representation no doubt was made exactly life size. Secondly, the impressions are only known to us in photographs so reduced, as compared with the original, that the crudenesses, aided by the softening effects of time, entirely disappear.

Lastly, the difficulty must be noticed that while the witnesses of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries speak of the image as being then so vivid that the blood seemed freshly shed, it is now darkened and hardly recognizable without minute attention. On the supposition that this is an authentic relic dating from the year A.D. 30, why should it have retained its brilliance through countless journeys and changes of climate for fifteen centuries, and then in four centuries more have become almost invisible? On the other hand if it be a fabrication of the fifteenth century this is exactly what we should expect.

>>> (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13762a.htm)


Jiri

[Antipope Innocent II]

"Plausible as this contention appeared, a most serious historical difficulty had meanwhile been brought to light. Owing mainly to the researches of Canon Ulysse Chevalier a series of documents was discovered which clearly proved that in 1389 the Bishop of Troyes appealed to Clement VII, the Avignon Pope then recognized in France, to put a stop to the scandals connected to the Shroud preserved at Lirey. It was, the Bishop declared, the work of an artist who some years before had confessed to having painted it but it was then being exhibited by the Canons of Lirey in such a way that the populace believed that it was the authentic shroud of Jesus Christ. The pope, without absolutely prohibiting the exhibition of the Shroud, decided after full examination that in the future when it was shown to the people, the priest should declare in a loud voice that it was not the real shroud of Christ, but only a picture made to represent it. The authenticity of the documents connected with this appeal is not disputed."
>>> (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13762a.htm)


As a medievalist, I find it amusing that it was sceptical medieval clerics who first exposed the "Shroud" as a fake, whereas the heyday of clueless "Shroud" belief is ... well, right now.

So which is the age of reason and which is the age of superstition again? :huh:

[Minimalist]

said Jackson, a devout Catholic.


Pretty much tells you all you need to know.

[Toto]

said Jackson, a devout Catholic.


Pretty much tells you all you need to know.

Not exactly - the Catholic Church does not vouch for the authenticity.

There's something else going on.

[Solo]

"Plausible as this contention appeared, a most serious historical difficulty had meanwhile been brought to light. Owing mainly to the researches of Canon Ulysse Chevalier a series of documents was discovered which clearly proved that in 1389 the Bishop of Troyes appealed to Clement VII, the Avignon Pope then recognized in France, to put a stop to the scandals connected to the Shroud preserved at Lirey. It was, the Bishop declared, the work of an artist who some years before had confessed to having painted it but it was then being exhibited by the Canons of Lirey in such a way that the populace believed that it was the authentic shroud of Jesus Christ. The pope, without absolutely prohibiting the exhibition of the Shroud, decided after full examination that in the future when it was shown to the people, the priest should declare in a loud voice that it was not the real shroud of Christ, but only a picture made to represent it. The authenticity of the documents connected with this appeal is not disputed."
>>> (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13762a.htm)


As a medievalist, I find it amusing that it was sceptical medieval clerics who first exposed the "Shroud" as a fake, whereas the heyday of clueless "Shroud" belief is ... well, right now.

So which is the age of reason and which is the age of superstition again? :huh:

I think the point to take home is that the Church knew six hundred years ago the shroud was a fake, and instead of throwing the rag out they have kept it as a relic for future use. But as Chesterton said, the Catholic church is superior to any other Christian confession as it admits every sort of faith, even a respectable one. ;)

Jiri

[Antipope Innocent II]

As a medievalist, I find it amusing that it was sceptical medieval clerics who first exposed the "Shroud" as a fake, whereas the heyday of clueless "Shroud" belief is ... well, right now.

So which is the age of reason and which is the age of superstition again? :huh:

I think the point to take home is that the Church knew six hundred years ago the shroud was a fake, and instead of throwing the rag out they have kept it as a relic for future use.

Er, no. What actually happened is that the Church found it was a fake six hundred years ago and its local representative - the Bishop of Poitiers - ordered the local noble family who owned it to stop claiming it was the genuine article. The Bishop couldn't "throw the rag out" because the Bishop didn't own it - the De Charny family did. The De Charny's obeyed until Bishop Henri was safely dead and then, the next time they were short of cash, they started displaying it as the real Shroud again.

Bishop Herni's successor ordered them to stop and when they ignored him, petitioned the Pope, citing his predecessor's evidence that the rag was a fake. The Pope couldn't argue with the evidence and, even though he was a relative by marriage to the De Charny's, also ordered them to stop claiming it was the real thing.

Then the Shroud disappears from the records for a while, but seems to have been included in one of the De Charny women's dowries when she married into an Italian family, which is how it eventually came to Turin. By then all records of any proof it was a fake and the statement to that effect by the Pope (Antipope actually, but anyway) was no longer known, so it starts getting displayed as the real thing again.

The documents showing that it had been proven a fake didn't come to light again until modern times, and they are one reason why the modern Church has always been rather cautious about making any explicit claims about the Shroud.

Interestingly, those who have been most keen on claiming the "Shroud" is genuine lately are largely non-Catholics, including some distinctly "fundie" Protestants.

[Huon]

I think the point to take home is that the Church knew six hundred years ago the shroud was a fake, and instead of throwing the rag out they have kept it as a relic for future use. But as Chesterton said, the Catholic church is superior to any other Christian confession as it admits every sort of faith, even a respectable one. ;)

Jiri

The RCC makes a difference : it is not a relic, it is an icon. And they are not iconoclasts !

An icon is an image. There are no relics of Tarzan, but there are many icons of him.

In France, there are not many supporters of the authenticity of the Turin Shroud.

[Joan of Bark]

And does anyone else think that the image on the shroud appears too much like a medieval artistic impression of JC? It doesn't appear to be the image of a Jew.

[Antipope Innocent II]

And does anyone else think that the image on the shroud appears too much like a medieval artistic impression of JC?

Yep. The eyes are too close to the top of the head, for example. This makes sense if the image was made by a Fourteenth Century artist, as it fits with late Medieval aesthetics and the Gothic artistic style, but if it's the image of a human then he was a seriously deformed mutant. Ditto for the length of one of his arms, which seems to have been done to cover the images penis. The De Charnys didn't want devout pilgrims contemplating the divine willy before depositing their silver in the family coffers.

IIRC the weave of the linen and even the length of the cloth fits the idea that it was woven in northern Europe in the late Medieval period perfectly, but doesn't fit with First Century middle eastern linen at all.

It's interesting that all of the supposedly "scientific" examinations of the "Shroud" over the years have included batteries of complex scanning equipment, electron microscopes and all kinds of other high-tech gear wielded by scientists with degrees in a variety of remarkable fields of specialty. But none of them have ever included people who would be useful if you actually wanted to work out if it was a Medieval fake or not - like experts in Gothic art or specialists in Medieval textiles.

The Skeptical Shroud of Turin website (http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/) hasn't been updated for quite a while, but it's still a good antidote to the pseudo scientific craziness which still surrounds this dramatic piece of Medieval art.

PS I said Henri was Bishop of Poitiers in my earlier post. This was wrong - he was from Poitiers but was Bishop of Troyes.

[Solo]

I think the point to take home is that the Church knew six hundred years ago the shroud was a fake, and instead of throwing the rag out they have kept it as a relic for future use.

Er, no. What actually happened is that the Church found it was a fake six hundred years ago and its local representative - the Bishop of Poitiers - ordered the local noble family who owned it to stop claiming it was the genuine article. The Bishop couldn't "throw the rag out" because the Bishop didn't own it - the De Charny family did. The De Charny's obeyed until Bishop Henri was safely dead and then, the next time they were short of cash, they started displaying it as the real Shroud again.

Bishop Herni's successor ordered them to stop and when they ignored him, petitioned the Pope, citing his predecessor's evidence that the rag was a fake. The Pope couldn't argue with the evidence and, even though he was a relative by marriage to the De Charny's, also ordered them to stop claiming it was the real thing.

Then the Shroud disappears from the records for a while, but seems to have been included in one of the De Charny women's dowries when she married into an Italian family, which is how it eventually came to Turin. By then all records of any proof it was a fake and the statement to that effect by the Pope (Antipope actually, but anyway) was no longer known, so it starts getting displayed as the real thing again.

The documents showing that it had been proven a fake didn't come to light again until modern times, and they are one reason why the modern Church has always been rather cautious about making any explicit claims about the Shroud.

Interestingly, those who have been most keen on claiming the "Shroud" is genuine lately are largely non-Catholics, including some distinctly "fundie" Protestants.

Even if the church did not own the shroud, it could have ordered it destroyed as blashpemous. At some point the shroud came into its possession (I mean Vatican.) Why would it not have been destroyed then ?

BTW, you are probably familiar with another, and more grievous, example of the church regression into error and disrepute. The Canon Episcopi of the beginning of the 10th century declares the belief in the reality of witchcraft to be the mark of an infidel. Compare that with Summis desiderantes affectibus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summis_desiderantes_affectibus).

Jiri

[Antipope Innocent II]

Even if the church did not own the shroud, it could have ordered it destroyed as blashpemous.

It wasn't "blasphemous". And your idea that the Bishop of Troyes could simply "order" a powerful family like the De Charnys to do anything with their private possessions owes more to a Hollywood view of the Church in the Middle Ages than to reality. Contrary to popular belief, the Medieval Church was not a theocracy.

The De Charnys reluctantly stopped exhibiting their "Shroud" as the real thing when ordered to by Bishop Henri because it was a bit hard to argue with his evidence that the thing was a fake - he'd found the artist who'd made it after all. But when it was easier to deny it was a fake, once Bishop Henri was dead, they blithely ignored his successor and only had to stop exhibiting it a second time when their relative the Pope stepped in.

At some point the shroud came into its possession (I mean Vatican.)

It was a private possession of the House of Savoy until 1983, when it was donated to the Papacy.

Why would it not have been destroyed then ?

Because while it isn't officially recognised as a genuine relic, it's still recognised as a famous depiction of Jesus. At the very least it's a priceless work of Medieval art. Why the hell would they "destroy it"?

BTW, you are probably familiar with another, and more grievous, example of the church regression into error and disrepute. The Canon Episcopi of the beginning of the 10th century declares the belief in the reality of witchcraft to be the mark of an infidel. Compare that with Summis desiderantes affectibus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summis_desiderantes_affectibus).

"Error and disrepute"? Thinking about magic and witchcraft changed over that 500 years. Check out Richard Kieckhefer's Magic in the Middle Ages for the details as to how and why this happened.

[Solo]

I think the point to take home is that the Church knew six hundred years ago the shroud was a fake, and instead of throwing the rag out they have kept it as a relic for future use. But as Chesterton said, the Catholic church is superior to any other Christian confession as it admits every sort of faith, even a respectable one. ;)

Jiri

The RCC makes a difference : it is not a relic, it is an icon. And they are not iconoclasts !

An icon is an image. There are no relics of Tarzan, but there are many icons of him.

In France, there are not many supporters of the authenticity of the Turin Shroud.

By definition, a burial shroud is a relic:


The word relics comes from the Latin reliquiae (the counterpart of the Greek leipsana) which already before the propagation of Christianity was used in its modern sense, viz., of some object, notably part of the body or clothes, remaining as a memorial of a departed saint.

Catholic Encyclopedia


Jiri

[Solo]

Even if the church did not own the shroud, it could have ordered it destroyed as blashpemous.
Because while it isn't officially recognised as a genuine relic, it's still recognised as a famous depiction of Jesus. At the very least it's a priceless work of Medieval art. Why the hell would they "destroy it"?


Perhaps, my point is difficult to grasp.


BTW, you are probably familiar with another, and more grievous, example of the church regression into error and disrepute. The Canon Episcopi of the beginning of the 10th century declares the belief in the reality of witchcraft to be the mark of an infidel. Compare that with Summis desiderantes affectibus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summis_desiderantes_affectibus).

"Error and disrepute"? Thinking about magic and witchcraft changed over that 500 years. Check out Richard Kieckhefer's Magic in the Middle Ages for the details as to how and why this happened.

Ditto.

Jiri

[Huon]

The Shroud of Turin is not a relic. The Catholic Church knew six hundred years ago (as you wrote, Jiri) that this rag is not a shroud, still less the shroud of JC. So, they let their naïve fidels believe what they want (the rag is a relic, the shroud of JC). And they let a John P. Jackson, Ph.D., director and founder of the Turin Shroud Center of Colorado, say and write his BS. But I did not see anything written or said by JP 2 or Ratzinger on that subject. They know the truth, but they are not obliged to say it.

[Huon]

There is another shroud in Carcassonne (SW France, near Toulouse). It is preserved in the Cathedral Saint Michel. This Saint Shroud could have been brought back from the Holy land by two Augustine monks, around 1298. The local Church used this shroud to regain the fidels who could have been misled during the Albigense Crusade. Later, during the XVIth century, this shroud was used against the Protestants. Bishop Martin de saint André showed that this shroud could not catch fire. A miracle !
In 1993, a scientist, Dominique Cardon, made a C14 analysis of the so-called shroud, and found a date between 1220 and 1474 (95 %).

And we also have shrouds in Cadouin, Brioude, saint Florent de Saumur, a tunic in Argenteuil. There is also Der heilige rock zu Trier, and another in Cologne (Köln). For those who can read french, google "Suaire Carcassonne" etc...

[Antipope Innocent II]

Perhaps, my point is difficult to grasp.



Not really. It's just silly. Whatever the "Shroud" may or may not be otherwise, it's a venerated image and a work of Medieval art. The idea that the Church should destroy it is plain bizarre.

Ditto.


No, but I'm interested in objective history rather than hysterical value judgements. I take it you aren't interested in the history of how these ideas about magic changed between 1000 and 1500? Okay. I'm not terribly interested in the making the bleeding obvious point that religion is absurd. :wave:

The Shroud of Turin is not a relic.

I think we're all agreed on that, even the Church.

The Catholic Church knew six hundred years ago (as you wrote, Jiri) that this rag is not a shroud, still less the shroud of JC.

Yes.

So, they let their naïve fidels believe what they want (the rag is a relic, the shroud of JC).

Wrong. Did you read my previous posts? They didn't let their naive believers believe what they want at all - they made it quite clear that the "Shroud" was only a painting and not the real thing. They went to some efforts to ensure that this was understood, despite fraudulent attempts by the Shroud's owner to pretend it was real.

But this was the Fourteenth Century, so when the "Shroud" made its way to Italy the former declarations of its true nature were lost and forgotten and not discovered again until the Nineteenth Century. You couldn't do a Google search on documents of the former Avignonese Papacy in the late Fourteenth Century.


And they let a John P. Jackson, Ph.D., director and founder of the Turin Shroud Center of Colorado, say and write his BS.

They "let" him? And they were going to stop him from saying whatever nonsense he wants, how exactly?

But I did not see anything written or said by JP 2 or Ratzinger on that subject. They know the truth, but they are not obliged to say it.

Why the hell would the current Pope have anything to say on the matter? The Church's position on the "Shroud" is already clear. In 1998 John Paul II said it should be considered "an icon" and said "Since we're not dealing with a matter of faith, the church can't pronounce itself on such questions. It entrusts to scientists the tasks of continuing to investigate, to reach adequate answers to the questions connected to this shroud."

Wow, how superstitious and unreasonable!

[dr lazer blast]

wow, do you guys equate the same disdain for a secular scientist deciding to test the big bang or any other theories that don't have to do with religion?

[Toto]

The shroud has been tested and retested. This appears to be a scientist with an agenda trying to force results that are not there.

[Fenton Mulley]

What about that show on National Geograhic "Da Vinci and the mystery of the shroud"? I don't remember anyone here ever mentioning this when the shroud comes up time and time again.
I've seen the show a couple times, but not recently enough to recall the details except it was a very compelling case that the shroud is a photograph taken by Da Vinci which was substituted for an earlier shroud by the Savoy's. It involved Da Vinci, the Pope and the Savoy family.

The head on the shroud is said to be Da Vinci himself.

[Holly3278]

Maybe this time they'll prove that the "Shroud" is a fake.

[Antipope Innocent II]

What about that show on National Geograhic "Da Vinci and the mystery of the shroud"? I don't remember anyone here ever mentioning this when the shroud comes up time and time again.
I've seen the show a couple times, but not recently enough to recall the details except it was a very compelling case that the shroud is a photograph taken by Da Vinci which was substituted for an earlier shroud by the Savoy's. It involved Da Vinci, the Pope and the Savoy family.

The head on the shroud is said to be Da Vinci himself.

Firstly, the guy is called Leonardo. Calling him "Da Vinci" is like calling Joan of Arc "Of Arc". I blame that ignoramus Dan Brown for this relatively new practice of referring to him as "Da Vinci" - since his stupid novel became the marketing success of the decade everyone who wants to cash in on the fad needs to stick "Da Vinci" all over whatever it is they are trying to sell. I saw a "Da Vinci Oracle" divination kit in a shop the other day. Considering the scorn Leonardo had for fortune tellers and other charlatans, I couldn't help but note the irony.

Secondly, that silly documentary is based on the book Turin Shroud - In Whose Image? by arch conspiracy kooks Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince. These idiots are also the prime source of "information" for the crap in The Da Vinci Code and wrote a book on how various ancient monuments are actually portals for aliens and this is being covered up by the CIA.

A reliable source on information on anything at all they are not.

Their argument re the "Shroud" is that a medieval artist couldn't have produced it (why?) and it could only have been produced by Leonardo (again, why?) Other absurdities aside, this kooky thesis crashes before it even gets off the ground - the carbon dating came up with a range of AD 1260-1390. Leonardo wasn't born until 1452. They then try to tie the "Shroud" to their whacko idea that Leonardo was a member of the "Priory of Sion", which is known to be a modern hoax that wasn't even dreamed up until the early 1960s.

This whole thesis is garbage.

[Toto]

Picket and Prince site for an updated version (http://www.picknettprince.com/books/turinshroud/turin.htm)Despite often bitter opposition from many vested interests, Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince have fearlessly exposed cover-ups and conspiracies, from the faking of the Shroud of Turin [Turin Shroud], the Rudolf Hess mission [Double Standards], the battle among the Second World War Allies [Friendly Fire], the British royal family [War of the Windsors], the New Age movement and the hijacking of ancient Egypt [The Stargate Conspiracy], the Priory of Sion [The Sion Revelation] - and the origins and history of Christianity [The Templar Revelation].

There is a market for this sort of entertainment. :eek:

[Fenton Mulley]

What about that show on National Geograhic "Da Vinci and the mystery of the shroud"? I don't remember anyone here ever mentioning this when the shroud comes up time and time again.
I've seen the show a couple times, but not recently enough to recall the details except it was a very compelling case that the shroud is a photograph taken by Da Vinci which was substituted for an earlier shroud by the Savoy's. It involved Da Vinci, the Pope and the Savoy family.

The head on the shroud is said to be Da Vinci himself.

Firstly, the guy is called Leonardo. Calling him "Da Vinci" is like calling Joan of Arc "Of Arc". I blame that ignoramus Dan Brown for this relatively new practice of referring to him as "Da Vinci" - since his stupid novel became the marketing success of the decade everyone who wants to cash in on the fad needs to stick "Da Vinci" all over whatever it is they are trying to sell. I saw a "Da Vinci Oracle" divination kit in a shop the other day. Considering the scorn Leonardo had for fortune tellers and other charlatans, I couldn't help but note the irony.

Secondly, that silly documentary is based on the book Turin Shroud - In Whose Image? by arch conspiracy kooks Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince. These idiots are also the prime source of "information" for the crap in The Da Vinci Code and wrote a book on how various ancient monuments are actually portals for aliens and this is being covered up by the CIA.

A reliable source on information on anything at all they are not.

I don't recall the program mention The Priory of Scion, aliens, the CIA, or any other crap you mentioned. And I did not call him "Da Vinci" because of some book I have no interest in. And lastly, I don't want to argue about it, especially not with you.

Their argument re the "Shroud" is that a medieval artist couldn't have produced it (why?) and it could only have been produced by Leonardo (again, why?)

The theory is that the image was produced by a camera obscura which "Leonardo" had drawings of in one of his notebooks. He also had access to photo sensitive chemicals needed to produce the image. There's no paint on the thing except for the blood spots.
If it's so easily dismissed as a medieval painting why has the controversy over what it is and how it was made continuing until this day?

Other absurdities aside, this kooky thesis crashes before it even gets off the ground - the carbon dating came up with a range of AD 1260-1390. Leonardo wasn't born until 1452. They then try to tie the "Shroud" to their whacko idea that Leonardo was a member of the "Priory of Sion", which is known to be a modern hoax that wasn't even dreamed up until the early 1960s.

This whole thesis is garbage.

Don't you think Leonardo would have been smart enough not to use new clothe? Being related to Pope he would have had access to older clothes possibly brought home from the crusades. The Pope commissioned Leonardo to produce a new money maker that looked more realistic than the one they had previously been showing. If I recall corretly it was the "Leary" shroud that disappeared right about when this new shroud showed up.

The case made sounded very plausible to me and did not have anything to do with the crazy shit you smeared all over it. But maybe it is all bunk.
It's quite obvious that you get much more excited about the shroud than I.

[lumax]

I would like to put out something I didn't see posted here(or maybe I missed). Even if they are actually able to date the shroud to the year of Christ's death it still doesn't prove it is his death shroud it just proves what year the cloth is from. There is no note attached that says "This is Jesus." Many people were crucified at that time(if it is real) and if it is a forgery - well many "holy relics" are not real so that should not really be a shock to the Catholics at least.

[Antipope Innocent II]

I don't recall the program mention The Priory of Scion, aliens, the CIA, or any other crap you mentioned.

It's the Priory of Sion. And they do bring it into their theory about Leonardo and the "Shroud". As for the other crap, I mentioned that to give you an idea of the kind of kooks you're dealing with. These two clowns have made a living from writing books on all kinds of so-called "mysteries" and "cover ups". I suspect they laugh every time some gullible fool buys one of their crappy paperbacks.

And I did not call him "Da Vinci" because of some book I have no interest in.

I was referring to why the documentary you mentioned calls him "Da Vinci".


And lastly, I don't want to argue about it, especially not with you.

Ouch. Yet you then proceed to do just that ...

The theory is that the image was produced by a camera obscura which "Leonardo" had drawings of in one of his notebooks.

Big deal. Aristotle had described the use of a camera obscura and the medieval Arabic scholar Alhazen's works made it well known to Medieval European scholars. The fact that Leonardo was familiar with it means nothing - it was a well-understood concept.

He also had access to photo sensitive chemicals needed to produce the image.

As did thousands of earlier people who also understood the camera obscura concept. Again, big deal.

There's no paint on the thing except for the blood spots.

Because Picknett and Prince say so?! Give me a break. Microscopist Walter McCrone disagrees.

If it's so easily dismissed as a medieval painting why has the controversy over what it is and how it was made continuing until this day?

Because there's no consensus on how the painting was done. Plenty of theories though and none of them require Leonardo da Vinci.

Don't you think Leonardo would have been smart enough not to use new clothe?

Of course - he used 150 year old cloth! It all becomes clear.


Being related to Pope he would have had access to older clothes possibly brought home from the crusades.

Leonardo was related to a Pope? Pardon?

The Pope commissioned Leonardo to produce a new money maker that looked more realistic than the one they had previously been showing.

And the evidence for this is ... ?

If I recall corretly it was the "Leary" shroud that disappeared right about when this new shroud showed up.

Nope. This is just a fantasy cooked up by Picknett and Prince. The "Shoud" pops in and out of the documentary history about a dozen times throughout its early history simply because that's the nature of Medieval documentary evidence.

The case made sounded very plausible to me and did not have anything to do with the crazy shit you smeared all over it. But maybe it is all bunk.

The "crazy shit" was the other "crazy shit" Picknett and Prince have been selling. If you want to trust the baseless speculations and fantasies of these two cranks, be my guest.

It's quite obvious that you get much more excited about the shroud than I.

Excuse me for knowing what I'm talking about. I get "excited" about lots of subjects that intersect with my main historical interests. This is just one of them.

[badger3k]

I'm at work and skimming this, but did anyone bring up the fact that most descriptions of burial shrouds were of multiple pieces, or that the weave pattern seems to have not been in use during the first century? I remember this from another show on Nat Geo (I think - it was too skeptical to be on the History Channel), where they found a first century burial which was different than the supposed shroud (although to be fair, would they use the same covering for a corpse that was probably either going to be cremated or thrown into a common grave? - allowing for the description to be historical).

[Joan of Bark]

Even if they are actually able to date the shroud to the year of Christ's death it still doesn't prove it is his death shroud it just proves what year the cloth is from. There is no note attached that says "This is Jesus."

This is a point I wanted to make. It ties in with my claim that it looks like a medievelist's image of how Jesus was always portrayed: i.e. "It looks just like Jesus! So it must be Jesus!"