i was reading a book a while ago that says da vinci faked the turin shroud by somehow placing a photo negative of a crucified body onto th cloth. i found it very interesting, anyone else heard about it
Where would Da Vinci get a photo negative? There is a several hundred year gap between Da Vinci and the invention of photography.
Not necessarily. Some photographic principles (such as the effect of light on silver chloride, and the projection of an image through a small hole) were apparently known at the time. This page: The Shroud: Physical Evidence describes the photo theory - it's very near the bottom of the page, under the heading "(3) Camera Obscura".
nwo that i have more time: apparently he made a fake to replace the original which was burned in a fire, dont know why he would tho, other thans to demonstarte his genius
thats not important, i could get an old piece of paper and do a drawing on it, but that doesnt mean the drawing had to be done ages ago. what relly should have been tested is the ink, that would give a time of creation
Pete: There was also a doc where a professor from Oxford showed that with a shroud bathed in silver nitrate (which is photosensitive) hung from wire and left exposed to an image of a hung man yards away from it, would eventually have an image of that man burned on its fibers. He needed to show this becuase some evidence, despite the very scientific evidence of carbon-14 placing it as Mediaval hoax, showed that, up close, the fibers held no paint at all. Which was uncanny- this would lead to the belief that someone actually did lay in that shroud, bleeding. Too- if you look at the face, you will find the nose is skewered and the left half of its temple is bloated, evidence of a man brutalized before being wrapped in the shroud. But the limbs are disproportianate to a human's, and the detail too fine. Look at him- he looks like an alien. *Edit* *grin* Just noticed the typo- a 'hung' man as opposed to a "hanged" one. My the things I could do with this, but I'll leave it as is.
If I remember correctly, they found some pollen on it, I think it was roughly 13th or 14th century French pollen. One theory about the SHroud is that it was made by the body of the leader of the Knights templar, who were bloodily suppressed in the early 14th century.
Turin's shroud has been tested to be a fake. End of story. How they faked it, however, is an entirely different one and possibly entertaining ...
No one will ever know the entire true story of the Shoud of Turin let alone prove it, unless you interview the dude who originally made it! Right now I think that's impossible. End of story! Atta Boy
James R: The shroud has been dated to a few centuries early than when Leonardo lived, hasn't it? ************* M*W: I thought it had been carbon dated to the 14th century. Strangely, it sort of looks like da Vinci. He would have had the intelligence to create some sort of relic like that, especially one to confuse generations of progeny.
Many of the shroud experts think the face on the shroud is the face of Johnny Depp.......They're probably right, but I think Johnny would disagree! Atta Boy Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Naomi: Very. You can do it yourself with silver nitrate and a manikin. If that indeed were the face of Johny Depp, I'd actually have something interesting to masturbate with.
According to this site, the Templars raided Constantinople in 1204, wherein the shroud is thought to originate: http://www.templarhistory.com/shroud.html And Circe makes no sense, considering: "In their two books, "The Hiram Key" and "The Second Messiah," authors Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas paint a contrasting picture to the Mandylion theory. The authors theorize that the image on the Shroud of Turin is in fact that of the last Grand Master of the order, Jacques de Molay, who was tortured some months before his execution in 1307. The image on the shroud certainly does fit the description of De Molay as depicted in medieval wood cuts, a long nose, hair shoulder length and parted in the center, a full beard that forked at its base, not to mention the six-foot frame. De Molay was said to be quite tall..." And the image has a forked beard. Either way, shroud is bogus. The body is disproportionate to a human's.
There is, of course, no photograph of de Molay; one can only rely on impressions. He was supposed to have a long, full, forked beard that may have looked like this - Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! In my opinion, the face on the shroud is sporting a beard that doesn't quite match that of de Molay. Also, Knight and Lomas speculate that de Molay was subjected to a mock crucifixion, as a reinactment of Jesus' suffering. Sadly, there is no evidence of this. The shroud is most likely a fraud.
(moment to ponder the fact that I'm talking about forked beards here. I'm..fucked) Your 'this' is a small box with a little man in it that says "je retiens cette image en otage" At any rate, its odd that it should take a beard to convince you. The image looks more like a praying mantis than it does a man.
