Shroud of Turin

[Fucky McFuckerson]

you are so right i am embarrassed.

it's fake just because thiers no proof thats its fake doesnt mean it aint *insert sarcasm*

Maybe you should stick to the Open Forum from here on out. Thanks.

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

im just gonna go with a gut feeling and say its fake. i have no proof.

Honeslty, that is how i feel...but how was it done? That is what im so interested in. Apparently, the scientists tried to recreate something similar and COULDNT.

 

[HiT-2-TiMeS]

yeah i dunno, it is interesting to think about. and i do think its possible that its real, as i believe that jesus was a real historical person that really died (thats pretty much all i believe from the bible)...so it could be from him...

looking online, this one guy says that the way the image is shaped is not possible.

http://knol.google.com/k/emdasher/the-shroud-of-turin-debunked/3s7u74qs939fp/2#

so i really dont know for sure, but it just seems like it has to be fake.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

Honeslty, that is how i feel...but how was it done? That is what im so interested in. Apparently, the scientists tried to recreate something similar and COULDNT.

What? I've seen a program on this years ago and they showed several possible ways it could have been made, and even reproduced it (of course on smaller scales). So you're incorrect when you say scientists couldn't recreate it. There are a number of theories and possible explanations but there is no proof one way or another. One theory I recall off the top of my head was a type of primitive photographic technique. Here...Wikipedia talks about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Photographic_image_production
As well as a number of other possible explanations.

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

What? I've seen a program on this years ago and they showed several possible ways it could have been made, and even reproduced it (of course on smaller scales). So you're incorrect when you say scientists couldn't recreate it. There are a number of theories and possible explanations but there is no proof one way or another. One theory I recall off the top of my head was a type of primitive photographic technique. Here...Wikipedia talks about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Photographic_image_production
As well as a number of other possible explanations.

Im only going off what the documentary said, and they clearly stated that they could NOT reproduce it.

*shrugs*

 

[inasense206]

theres no way thats the real deal, and how do you test for dye?? theres soooo many different things to make dye out of (any liquid substance that will hold to a fabric).. did they test cranberry juice? haha... just doesnt seem possible to me... at all

 

[The Duke of Earl]

What? I've seen a program on this years ago and they showed several possible ways it could have been made, and even reproduced it (of course on smaller scales). So you're incorrect when you say scientists couldn't recreate it. There are a number of theories and possible explanations but there is no proof one way or another. One theory I recall off the top of my head was a type of primitive photographic technique. Here...Wikipedia talks about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Photographic_image_production
As well as a number of other possible explanations.

what he said

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

theres no way thats the real deal, and how do you test for dye?? theres soooo many different things to make dye out of (any liquid substance that will hold to a fabric).. did they test cranberry juice? haha... just doesnt seem possible to me... at all

I have no clue, but they ran a number of tests and came the conclusion that it was NOT dye that was used.

 

[Home-E]

I have no clue, but they ran a number of tests and came the conclusion that it was NOT dye that was used.

lol @ nobody listening to you. It's as if these people automatically close their mind off when a religious topic is presented

 

[28g w/o the bag]

"my face don't belong in the source, it belongs on the shroud of turin, for certain" -canibus

::

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

lol @ nobody listening to you. It's as if these people automatically close their mind off when a religious topic is presented

I know, right? The funny thing is, as if no one could tell by my sig, im NOT relgious and do NOT believe in god. I just find this fascinating and i want to know what it is and how it was done. Thats all. It may be the shroud of Jesus....which is fine, as i believe there WAS a man named Jesus...but i do NOT beleive he was the son of "god", nor do i believe he was a miracle worker. I DO believe that he was a wise man that was some sort of shaman and good samaritan who traveled throughout the middle east.

 

[askG]

how can ppl say its a hoax or not when jesus christ never even existed.

 

[HiT-2-TiMeS]

are you serious? i mean im not christian or anything but i think you pretty much have to accept that jesus was a real historical figure, there are other sources that mention him besides the bible. now he probably didnt do the stuff the bible said he did, but there is pretty much no doubt that he was a real person.

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

are you serious? i mean im not christian or anything but i think you pretty much have to accept that jesus was a real historical figure, there are other sources that mention him besides the bible. now he probably didnt do the stuff the bible said he did, but there is pretty much no doubt that he was a real person.

Agreed.

 

[Big ZAC]

there are other sources that mention him besides the bible..

example

 

[m.w.merlino]

you really shouldn't trust any information that isn't 100% concrete when it comes to artifacts with serious religious implications.

 

[Mr. Nice Guy]

example

How about the Qur'an


as well as a large number (maybe the majority) of modern historians

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

you really shouldn't trust any information that isn't 100% concrete when it comes to artifacts with serious religious implications.

There are many things i dont trust...but it was a great conversation starter, no?

 

[-TiM C-]

i lived in turin (torino) for 6 months and fake or not fake that shit is a HUGE deal in Italy. they only open the box its kept in like once every 25 years and only the pope can open it. peopel come from far and wide just to peep the box its kept in

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

SO, i watched another show about this last night on Discovery Channel called Da Vinci's Shroud, which basically makes a case for the Shroud Of Turin being a hoax and being done by Leonardo Da Vinci. It was quite interesting and the whole idea that Da Vinci may have taken the first "photograph" ever is pretty effin cool. It is alleged that he a used a camera obscura to create the shroud and the claim is that it is actually Da Vinci's face portrayed in it, not Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura

Its a cool theory to ponder. Here is a youtube video i found connecting Da Vinci and not only the shroud, but the Mona Lisa painting (who some claim is actually based off of Da Vinci's own facial structure). The music is hilarious and it is just thrown together and has ZERO to do with the show i watched, but gives a quick rundown of what i am talking about.