Did Leonardo da Vinci fake the Shroud of Turin? | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 696544 United Kingdom 07/02/2009 06:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The herring bone weave in the cloth was one that was used in the Middle East during biblical times. This and the presence in the material of pollens of types of flowers that grow around Jerusalem suggest that the cloth originated from the place and time in which Jesus lived. But this does not mean that it is his burial shroud, as some have inferred. The perfectionist artist and inventor Da Vinci could have used linen that had been brought back to Europe by pilgrims. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 716347 Ireland 07/02/2009 06:21 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 365611 United Kingdom 07/02/2009 06:23 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Simon Moon User ID: 669724 Israel 07/02/2009 06:30 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 696544 United Kingdom 07/02/2009 06:35 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | No. It is clearly NOT a self-portrait but a representation of Jesus with his wounds as described in the New Testament. Some argue that Leonardo used his own head and a corpse (he used these for his anatomical drawings). There is evidence for this, because the head is too small for the length of the body. He may have made the image in two stages - one for his head and one for the body, making an error in the scale of projection of the images onto the cloth impregnated with a photo-sensitive chemical. Evidence that a trial run was carried out for the photographic process was provided a few years back by an Italian physicist, who found a second, much fainter face on the back of the cloth. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 716357 United States 07/02/2009 06:39 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 696544 United Kingdom 07/02/2009 06:54 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Near the end of the fifteenth century, about 130 years after the Shroud's first public exhibition in Europe, Leonardo da Vinci described a camera obscura (a pinhole camera) in his notebooks. Aristotle (384-322 BCE) understood the principle and so did a tenth century Arabian scholar, Alhazen of Basra, who used a tent-sized camera obscura for observing the cosmos. In Alhazen's tent images were projected onto a wall where they could be traced or copied by hand. It wasn't until 1727 when Johann Heinrich Schulze discovered that silver mixed with nitric acid created a photosensitive compound that turned dark when exposed to light. And, it wasn't until 1816 when Nicéphore Niépce used a camera obscura with a sensitized paper to create an image. In 1834, Henry Fox Talbot created the first stable photographic negative on paper soaked in silver chloride. It is not impossible that a deep student of alchemy like Leonardo could have known about photo-sensitive chemicals like silver nitrate. He was a closet heretic who scorned the Catholic Church's exploitation of relics of saints in order to maintain its control of the religious loyalties of people. Tricking the church with a phony burial cloth would have given him great delight. The usual argument for Leonardo not being the fabricator of the Shroud of Turin is that it went first on display in 1354 - about a hundred years before he was born(shortly afterwards, a French bishop declared it to be a fake, would you believe?!). However, no one can be sure that this was the same shroud. Perhaps it was replaced because the original (itself a fake) got too tatty to be displayed to the faithful? We just do not know the exact provenance of the Shroud of Turin, so the argument that Leonardo was not around at the time it first appeared is not conclusive. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 696544 United Kingdom 07/02/2009 06:55 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 716357 United States 07/02/2009 06:58 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 696544 United Kingdom 07/02/2009 06:59 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | How lacklustre and insignificant today's artists seem in comparison to the Renaissance geniuses... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 365611So true! Look at the banal rubbish of someone like David Hockney. My own daughter paints better than he does. Most modern artists are media whores made famous by greedy art gallery directors wanting to make a fast buck. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 696544 United Kingdom 07/02/2009 07:04 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | no silly Quoting: Anonymous Coward 716357What is that vacuous remark supposed to mean? Just answering that I think it's silly to think that Leonardo da Vinci, as talented as he was, did not fake the Shroud of Turin O.K. Now I understand you. I agree. The trouble of course is that there is no smoking gun that proves any of the competing theories about how the image on the shroud was formed. Evidence that some think proves the image is that of Jesus can easily be debunked by others. So the issue will remain inconclusive even if new carbon-dating tests prove that the cloth is 2000 years old. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 696544 United Kingdom 07/02/2009 07:22 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | John 19: 40 (RSV) "They took the body of Jesus, and BOUND IT in linen CLOTHS with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews." Luke 23:52-53 (RSV) "This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then he took it down and WRAPPED IT in a linen shroud and laid him in a rock-hewn tomb..." Mark 15:46 (RSV) "And he brought a linen shroud, and taking him down, WRAPPED HIM in the linen shroud, and laid him in a tomb..." Matthew 27:59 (RSV) "And Joseph took the body, and WRAPPED IT in a clean linen shroud, and laid it in his own new tomb..." If believes accept that the account of the life and death of Jesus is historically accurate, they have to reconcile their belief that the Shroud of Turin is his burial shroud with the various statements in the New Testament that his body was wrapped, not draped, in cloth. The significance of this is of course that a sheet wound several times around a corpse would have displayed copies of it lying side by side (however the image was made), not the single imprint on the Shroud of Turin. The biblical evidence therefore argues against the shroud being a genuine burial cloth of ANYONE. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 561632 Netherlands 07/02/2009 07:32 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 696544 United Kingdom 07/02/2009 07:36 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 696544 United Kingdom 07/02/2009 07:48 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | If you mean this: [link to images.google.com] then I'd say it was irrelevant to the issue of this thread. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 688171 United States 07/02/2009 07:52 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | How lacklustre and insignificant today's artists seem in comparison to the Renaissance geniuses... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 365611thats a silly thing to say, thats like saying todays music is insignificant cause people don't write Mozart. We just live in a different time, different age! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 365611 United Kingdom 07/02/2009 07:58 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | How lacklustre and insignificant today's artists seem in comparison to the Renaissance geniuses... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 688171thats a silly thing to say, thats like saying todays music is insignificant cause people don't write Mozart. We just live in a different time, different age! That's a fair point. I guess I was really referring to the artists' personalities, in the two different periods. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 715964 Portugal 07/02/2009 08:20 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 715964 Portugal 07/02/2009 08:22 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | How lacklustre and insignificant today's artists seem in comparison to the Renaissance geniuses... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 688171thats a silly thing to say, thats like saying todays music is insignificant cause people don't write Mozart. We just live in a different time, different age! MOST so-called art of today IS insignificant! There is no constant progress on the history of humanity. Regressive phases happen. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 630447 United States 07/31/2009 09:14 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to www.e-forensicmedicine.net] |
Preacher Zero User ID: 738635 Ireland 07/31/2009 09:24 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | What you say is not consistent with the scientific tests made on the shroud. Someone making that thing would have to be an absolute genius with vast resources at his disposal. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 715964Like perhaps... Leonardo DaVinci, with the patronage of a king? O.o 'Magically Delicious' |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 630447 United States 07/31/2009 10:14 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | What you say is not consistent with the scientific tests made on the shroud. Someone making that thing would have to be an absolute genius with vast resources at his disposal. Quoting: Preacher ZeroLike perhaps... Leonardo DaVinci, with the patronage of a king? O.o Not even a king's patronage could explain or offer the technology needed to fake this artifact. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 718304 United States 07/31/2009 01:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | From: Basic Typology of techniques used to rewrite History chapters [link to www.godlikeproductions.com] Concerning the "NO" type, no footage used: as a consequence of the Laws of End Times Reductionism, in the last days, after people accepted the Mark and were reduced to beasts, the illuminati no more need to fake all "documents", since beasts will repeat that "black is white, day is night", each time the elders tell them to do it. Example: Ine of the chapters used to create "Jesus, the lover of Mary Magdalene", was reduced to reuse an existing and not faked historical document, the painting "Last Supper" by Leonardo da Vinci, and telling to the sheep that the man seen at the side of Jesus is not an apostle but it is a woman, more precisely Mary Magdalene. |