Thread: Shroud of Turin debate

you cannot be serious. I don't care about mysteries, I'm fine with good ol' boring truth. and I don't care if the shroud is real or not, although I'm pretty outraged that they'd still make segments on it knowing it's not real - assuming what you said is true (I'll have to look it all up once I get on a computer).

ok, so where did you get this info? I mean, did you have to do much research? I realize I probably sound like a moron who gets all his info through tv :/

the thing is, I would actually study things like this, but I don't feel that same urgency about "finding the truth" that I did a few years ago...you know? I feel content and secure enough in what I've found. although I guess I should go back to studying, as I keep getting dragged into arguments and discussions...

Originally Posted by nerve

proven to be a hoax 20 years ago? really? why are they still making discovery/science/natgeo/whatever specials on it?

it's not that I don't believe it's possible, but...what's your source?

Specials continue to be made because documentary channels know what gets asses in couch seats - controversy. And no one draws a crowd like a big ol' science vs religion/religious relic grudge match.

Example: The History channel shamelessly runs ridiculous 2012 nonsense 'documentaries' (closer to mockumentaries) even though it's all a bunch of garbage. They do it because there are enough gullible morons out there with cable TV that they know they'll watch it, hence ratings +++

Those are pretty much the only channels I will watch on television anymore; History, Discovery, National Geographic. They have a lot of great shows but don't forget that television is there to entertain...and you really cannot assume that something is accurate just because it was on Discovery. Usually if I see something like that on tv that catches my attention I will spend awhile on google just looking stuff up for myself. I realize you can't trust everything on the internet either, but at least you get much more of the story and can look at it from all sides and then make up your own mind about it.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

Specials continue to be made because documentary channels know what gets asses in couch seats - controversy. And no one draws a crowd like a big ol' science vs religion/religious relic grudge match.

Example: The History channel shamelessly runs ridiculous 2012 nonsense 'documentaries' (closer to mockumentaries) even though it's all a bunch of garbage. They do it because there are enough gullible morons out there with cable TV that they know they'll watch it, hence ratings +++

watch this

This documentary reveals what the face of Jesus supposedly really looked like IF the shroud was covering Jesus.

Through that documentary you can see how it's very possible that the carbon dating test that was done could be a "Bad sample" due to a number of reasons.

Edit: the link isn't an actual video, it is the article for the video

If that were the real face of a man it ought to be suffering from a globe effect, where the facial features are deformed because your transferring the features from a 3 dimensional object (a face) onto a 2 dimensional surface. That doesn't happen with the Shroud.

edit: Most likely physical appearance of Jesus, based on genotypical features of people in the middle east in the first century.

Associated video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilh8QkjpCh8

Even if the carbon dating were inaccurate, you have to account for the blood type found on the cloth having not existed until the 8th century AD. Or the image of the 'back' of the man being 8cm taller than the front, or the head sitting too low on the body, or or or or - see where I'm going here. Carbon dating is not the crux that we rest all our assumptions on.

Originally Posted by nerve

you cannot be serious. I don't care about mysteries, I'm fine with good ol' boring truth. and I don't care if the shroud is real or not, although I'm pretty outraged that they'd still make segments on it knowing it's not real - assuming what you said is true (I'll have to look it all up once I get on a computer).

ok, so where did you get this info? I mean, did you have to do much research? I realize I probably sound like a moron who gets all his info through tv :/

the thing is, I would actually study things like this, but I don't feel that same urgency about "finding the truth" that I did a few years ago...you know? I feel content and secure enough in what I've found. although I guess I should go back to studying, as I keep getting dragged into arguments and discussions...

I first read about it in Scientific American, but you can find all of the research today on the internet. Google Shroud of Turin + Carbon 14 / AB Blood, you should come up with plenty. Filter by .edu sites if you want to avoid senseless crap.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

If that were the real face of a man it ought to be suffering from a globe effect, where the facial features are deformed because your transferring the features from a 3 dimensional object (a face) onto a 2 dimensional surface. That doesn't happen with the Shroud.

yeah, i'm pretty sure you didn't watch that video at all, maybe the "preview" for it. In that Doc' they do account for the 2d distortions by replicating the effect in a reverse way, they explain it all in the documentary how exactly they specifically accomplish it. The only things they had to guess at were the skin tone, finger nails, facial hair and the fine detail of the hair on his head.

they do encounter the problem with the 2d cloth rounding the features and "hiding" the true depth in the cloth, but they explain the advanced programs and techniques used to reverse apply the effect in a way that removes the distortion by negatively applying it.

watch the movie like i suggested or just assume what you want but commenting on how the results aren't viable without first learning the procedures and techniques used to reach them makes it look like you're grasping for points to hold up your stance in this debate without looking at other points made. Basically you're looking at it with a biased attitude for the benefit of pressing you opinion on another instead of trying to take SOMETHING away from the debate beneficially.

I was simply stating that they found a process to reveal the the most basic features of the person the cloth wrapped. They also give very very good points as to why the carbon dating is most likely wrong, and some other data as to why it's believed to have been originated in the area of jesus's death.

ie. representations in older artworks of the cloth revealing certain peoples holding the shroud much before the period of the carbon dating, pollen samples in the cloth showing where it has been, art showing where the shroud was held when displayed by religious or royal figures in the past (the exact corner that was tested, the exact spot actually)...

take a look at that video, i'm not a christian and i don't believe in the religion so there's no reason to assume i'm trying to make you believe and repent, i'm trying to suggest that the cloth probably did cover someone (probably the man considered Jesus though i can't assume that) that was crucified in that time and had similar things done to him as the christian bible describes....

dono though i wasn't there, i can't say for sure.

see what you made me do?

I looked at the site you linked and it was just articles about the video you were referring to, i had to go to youtube just to find anything regarding it. But please, if you'd like to post a link to the actual video itself I'm more than willing to watch it.