A new piece of evidence has been added to this story: -- The shroud of Oviedo. This "face cloth" matches the Turin shroud in the blood stains that covered the face of the person buried. Even the polen particles, blood type, fibers, etc. All match. This shroud of Oviedo has been proven to date back to at least 400 AD. If those two shrouds were together at it's creation, then the theory of the Turin shroud being of the time of LDV is proven wrong.
I would ask any one with the least bit of interest in this facinating topic get the book by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince "How Leonardo Fooled History;The Turin Shroud". A very well done piece of research by these two authors whose conclusion is obvious. People should not get excited because Israeli scientists recently found some "pollen from the Middle East" on the shroud. Not unexpected to have Israel and the Vatican holding hands on this 'political' issue.
The using of a plate of glass with the figure drawn by mean of chiaroscuro technique as negative plate ( like do it the photographers during revealing process of any photo) would explain why the image looks so flat, burned and blurred and produces 3D pattern. This technique isn´t so unusual if we consider that people used to place curtains in front of stained glass windows and there were a lot of sensitive substances to sunlight during Mid Age. Our curtains are "printed" by sunlight gradually.
The using of a plate of glass with the figure drawn by mean of chiaroscuro technique as negative plate (like do it the photographers during revealing process of any photo) would explain why the image looks so flat, burned and blurred. This technique is not so unusual if we consider that people used to place curtains in front of stained glass windows and there were a lot of sensitive substances to sunlight during Mid Age, even today our curtains are "printed" by sunlight gradually.
I think the shroud is clever forgery, I thought that before I viewed this series I still think it is! But even if it were real. I wouldn't go bow down to it. Worship the true living God. Don't worship idols, cloths, crosses, or mummies of dead saints. To do so, is an abomination to the true living God.
What about the fact that the extraordinary photographic properties of the shroud cannot even be replicated exactly today, let alone in the middle ages? If Leonoardo really did invent the worlds first camera why didn't he draw pictures of his invention like he did with all of his other inventions?
@Gwyn Thomas Wales I think the documentary focuses on the possibility that one such as Leonardo could have artistically done such a thing, in part 3 or 4 was convincing saying that it couldn't have been wrapped around the head or else the face would be disfigured/ features stretched apart etc, so it was burned or chemically or light emitted, we don't even know how egyptians made super laser like cuttings in there architecture, its a strange world we live in.
@DocMagister There was a shroud- there was a worse fake before Leo. It looked like a painting and a local priest wrote to the Pope which at the time was part of the Savoy Family and was taken out of circulation. When it was exhibited again it was a better thing. After Leo's shroud was possibly cr4eated. We have no evidence it was the same shroud. Many other relics like the nails, the 1000 splinters of the cross... all of this was very common
@6Man666666 I just find it hard to believe that Leo could have invented a brand new photographic process and created a unique work of art that couldn't be appreciated in all its fine detail for another 500 years until the introduction of photography. Had Leo invented photography why on earth didn't he publicise it or write about it in his secret journals. Of course, the even more disturbing question is who did he torture and crucify beforehand.
@DocMagister he had access to cadavers. There are notes of his camera oscura, called artificial ocularis. the shroud image doesn't match front with back and the head is smaller than it should be- its three photos. He crucified a dead man. And used his own face.
@6Man666666 I have a problem with your theory because it doesn't fit the scientific facts that we know about the shroud. For example, pathologists know that the body that was wrapped in the shroud had been brutally tortured and crucified. They can see that the wounds from the flogging and the nails were caused when the person was alive and the wound in the side was caused after death exactly to match the wounds suffered by Jesus. If Leo faked the shroud then he also a bloody murderer.
@DocMagister first of all- no one was wrapped in the shroud. If they had been and the shroud had been imprinted the picture would suffer the distortion of a flat surface wrapping a globe. In forensics you call that a globe effect, the face would look disproportionate flattened, and it doesn't' It looks like a photograph.
@DocMagister second its not my theory but the theory of scientists that fitt the available evidence.
Third, yes, I agree with you about the face. It is beaten and it has the marks of punctures on the forehead. The intriguing part is that the bone structure matches Leonardo's. The rest of the body is of different proportion to the head. The head doesn't correspond to the body and the back doesn't correspond to the front in size, so looks like 3 diff photos. Head, torso, back.
@DocMagister and finally , having corpses at your disposal doesn't make you a murderer. You could say he probably desecrated a dead body tho and you would be right.
The case is strongest when he was working for the Savoy at the same time they were in possession of the original fake. Recognised as an object of embarrassment by the previous Pope and recalled from its place of exhibition for being a clearly painted fake.
The possibility of a man made shroud is a bigger possibility to me than magic.
@6Man666666 Ok - let us for a moment imagine that Leo invented the camera and managed to photograph a corpse who had been suffered wounds exactly matching the Biblical accounts. Did he put the bloodstains on before or after taking the photograph? The blood was on the shroud before the image formed. How did he manage that? How did get three separate "photographs" onto the cloth to synch up so perfectly? All using a technology that wasn't used again for three hundred years?
Leo was ambidextrous. Could paint two images at a time or work with a single image, using both hands at a time. He is a legend artist. His works are still under research. He was an equally good musician, and a scientist. Super talented. When Leonardo is in, strong possibilities are in!
@DocMagister he had access to cadavers. There are notes of his camera oscura, called artificial ocularis. the shroud image doesn't match front with back and the head is smaller than it should be- its three photos. He crucified a dead man. And used his own face.
Camera oscura was not a new invention. It was around back then and before.
I found this to be a very frustrating documentary - what exactly is the link between Leonardo and the Shroud of Turin? What about the extraordinarily similar looking Mandylion (or Edessa Cloth) that was stolen by the Knights Templar about a hundred years before the shroud of Turin showed up in a family connected to the Knights Templar?
Art the end of this video the narrator quotes from the "Apostles". She says "Search for the glory of Jesus and not his funeral shroud". Can someone tell me where I can find this quote. It does not appear in the Bible.
Well I'm convinced that the face in the shoud is NOT a jew from ancient Israel, I've always wondered why the face looked so "european" and such a tall person, for 1 st century AD! the average male would've been lucky to be 5'5 tall. Plus this image looks a lot older than a man of 36 as many think Christ was killed at this age.
Hey guys. If yall did sonme research than this video, your opinions may change. First there two copies of the Shroud. First seen in 1353 in the churrch of Lirey. there was a painted male on the cloth and written documents that confiirm this. In 1453 the shroud was given to the Savoy Family. and was not shown to the public for 40yrs. During the 40 yrs, the savoy and the medici family was Leonardos patrons.
The carbon dating was wrong, scientists have concluded that a long time ago. You can read that in e.g. Thermo Chimica Acta, Jan. 2005. Facts like that don't make the big headlines. In any case: they took samples of mid eval repair patches. Also the method was completely wrong (several pieces of 1 area instead of several areas). So we can forget about that carbon dating. Besides, carbon dating has been wrong in many cases (mummies being much older than the linen they ware wrapped in at burial).
Actually, the cabon dating is correct. The problem is, is that the fire that the shroud was in may have skewed the results to a younger age. BUT... carbon dating professionals said, that even taking the fire into consideration, it would have only skewed the shroud a few hundred years, SO in that case, the shroud would have be fabricated in the 9th - 10th century. An older fake, but a fake none the less.
Interesting video, thanks. But it's not very convincing, where's the proof? I've read some books on the shroud and it seems there are many scientists, also many non-christians, who believe it's real. Some even started out trying to find a quick proof against it and be done with it. Instead they came to the conclusion that it has no paint, has 3d info, real blood (some only visible under UV light) and there is no error, none at all. Even the way the blood flows is correct (pos. of arms on cross)!
As said, Davinci wasn't even born yet! As for that camera idea, yeah, let's take a CORRECTLY(!!!) tortured and crucified corpse, hang it on a rope for 8 days (front and back) so an image can form and let's hope that body doesn't decompose after 3 days. And of course: place blood on the linnen first and make sure the image falls perfectly on the right places with. It doesn't matter what is easy or hard to believe, the truth counts. Our very existence was also hard to believe 13 billion years ago.
he got an old linen, and it was imported from Palestine to Italy. Do you think he would have made the shroud out of new material? Then how would anyone think it should be old? Also, the original "shroud" you speak of was a dubious fake. A horrible one, that everyone even the local bishop knew who forged it.
All of your points are addressed in the entire documentary which you failed to watch.
Also..You don't need a corpse, you can use a statue.
There is real blood on the shroud, confirmed by several scientists, it even has a high bilirubin content..!
Many people WANT to believe something and then a LOGICAL discussion is impossible. I sugest you do real THOUROUGH and UNBIASED research. When you have ALL the FACTS there remains little doubt about its authenticity. And why are you still talking about "he", Leonardo? As I said: they guy wasn't even born yet when the shroud was already in public display (not to mention its prior history)!
If you have to bring that up, you didn't watch the documentary. And if you did, you were probably reading your bible the entire time.
Shut up, and watch the video, you faggot.
Just because there is blood on the shroud does not mean it belongs to Jesus, when you provide a DNA sample of Jesus, we can begin the test. IT COULD HAVE BEEN ANYONE'S BLOOD!!!
WATCH THE FUCKING DOCUMENTARY BEFORE YOU GO AND VOMIT MORE VERBAL DIARRHEA ABOUT THINGS THAT THEY ALREADY ADDRESSED IN THE VIDEO!!!
Haha :) So you admit it is blood :) Nobody has said it's Jesus (yet), all I say is that it's a real crucified corpse, not a hoax, it's a real burial cloth. After having established that you can examine the real age, history and see how many people were crucified and tortured in this exact way... The fact that you use strong language shows you can't win this argument with logic. I can see you know nothing about the shroud!!! All the many amazing details that proof it's not man-made. Study facts!
I won't waste any more time on answering you, no use. You are not able to have a normal discusion and have to resort to using bad language because you simply don't have enough information and knowledge to win this argument or even understand what I'm talking about. I have studied the shroud a LOT more than you but I won't waste my time on you since you seek not truth but your own preconceived truth. And your bad language shows you're stupid, rude & chicken. If you were HERE you would be careful!
I did not admit it was blood, I said, so what if it is...It still proves NOTHING.
I did study facts, you failed to watch the documentary at hand, and shot out your own set of B.S. and you're NOT entitled to your own set of facts. This discussion was about THIS video, and if you're too retarded to understand that, I hope to never hear a response from you again.
&
I don't give a flying fuck what you think my use of language means, especially when you constantly ignore the core message.
It is real blood and it's UNDERNEATH the image, if you can understand the significance of THAT you will understand that it DOES matter. But I guess you don't. But again: Leo wasn't born yet, so this whole video is based on a false and stupid idea. So your so called core message is wrong, Leo had nothing to do with the shroud. There are more reasons why not but the fact that he wasn't born yet should already suffice.
That was my final response, I won't waste any more time here. Have fun :)
@burnzorz It's pretty indisputable that there's real blood on the Shroud. Any indications to the contrary come from Walter McCrone who'm only raging skeptics still quote. Yes, you'll definently need a corpse, lol. It's brutal.
It doesn't matter whether there is blood on the shroud or not. And to do make this clear, it's because the Catholic Church invited the experts of radiological carbon dating in to examine the Shroud of Turin...They publically announced with 95% certainty it was almost 1500 years older than Christ.
If god had to superimpose the blood and image of Christ 1500 years later, he isn't god. Furthermore, I find it comical Christianity needs proof. If you had any, it would eliminate the need for Faith.
@burnzorz Multiple textile experts noticed a weaving pattern at the end of the cloth different from the rest of the cloth. Those are you "out of date" weaving styles on the cloth (I forget the name of the style.) Multiple textile experts stated that the ends appear to be re-woven with cotton. That section of the Shroud was even heavier than the other ends of the cloth. Sure enough, that was the section chosen to have the C-14 tests done. Faith doesn't mean the complete absense of evidence.
An interesting documentary, but when alls said and done they do not give much evidense that da Vinci faked it. If it was faked why does it have to have been by a famous person? There was a lot of faking of relics about about this time many unknown people must have got very good at it.
My stand on The Shroud Of Turin is simply this: If you are a sceptic, an agnostic, or even an atheist, you should be content with the way scientists have proven the less than divine qualities of the image. But if you have faith, would it kill you if you do not worship the cloth at all? If you worship Jesus or God, would it not be better to pray to him in your own personal way rather than put your stock in a piece of mere fabric?
@zulby09 Isn't it just better for religious and sceptic to agree to disagree, let the skeptics have their scientific evidence and the religious keep their faith on it. I mean there's not much point in anyone trying to convince the other of what it is so just don't. Also i'm sure people don't worship the cloth, just like atheists don't worship science. Besides i'm sure these scientists spend a hell of a lot more time in researching the shroud than any religious person speaks of it.
Leonardo Da Vinci could be laughing in his grave or somewhere in the heavens, knowing that people are actually worshipping his image on the shroud, and challenging the scientific community into unravelling the secrets of his ingenuity...he was way ahead of their time hehehehehehehehe
The Shroud was already in the possession of Geoffrey de Charny in 1349. This alone is enough to debunk this silly idea.
And there is historical and forensic evidence that the Shroud is even much older! By the way: the carbon dating has also been proven wrong in 2005 (Thermochimica Acta (Vol 425)).
As 8Thrist correctly said: the Shroud has 3D info, a photo would not. And the effort: hanging a crucified corpse for days, perfectly placed on all the blood stains..!
the photo obscura method would produce a 3d image on a sufrace such as linen, a result of a chemical burn. So its easier to believe a GOD man created an image through a central light source which radiated a piece of cloth to produce an image after death than to believe someone made it to use for political powers? WOW.
Myth and superstition with no evidence to support it. Dont forget to say God bless you when someone sneezes, the devil might posses them. Dont work on sunday.
Thats hot that Davinci knew that if we saw it with a camera it would be a 3d image. lol. Cmon! Ok. So Leonardo had his nose broken and cheek bruised to make it believable. Like they said it wasnt known till it was photographed that the nose was broken and etc. So.with all this considered they havent made thier point at all. But I definetly have a few unasnswered questions, Leonardo only made one self portrait. They make him sound like he wouldve had 100s. Why not paint himself as jesus?
It's ironic that the unbelievers who made this film used people of science who believe the shroud is authentic and carefully edited them. They didn't happen to mention this. They will do anything they can to bring down Christ with their nonsense, Real scientists say it's the true burial cloth of Christ. So get over it- get on your knees and pray!
Perhaps ??? Did you make your own resurge into this meather? Did you go there where the Efidence lead's you... Did you inquier in both the Pro and the Cons of the argument? or do you just belive what you hear?? Make up your mind... Ask questions even if they are Unconfortable weder to you ore the other find the trueth... Yes perhaps but perhaps not... what if Not ?
Whoa - da vinci was good painting a picture, getting it to turn up so we could see it a a later date. putting pollens on it that correspond to it being the burial cloth of Jesus. and doing it so it would have a 3d image and blood type and roman coins deciphened on the eyes later!. These athesists even paid someone £1,000000 to prove it fake and gave him a chair in a university if he would say its a fake. Thats because they hate Jesus, but he is watching them and will judge them!
The bible - the bits that aren't downright forgery - is a collection of myths. Nowt wrong with that - there are things too subtle for the rational mind, i.e. language, to grasp - so myths became the universal 'language' of 'unseen reality'. Prove the bible 'wrong' - if it is not literally true - it is impossible to prove that it did not happen? Prove a negative?.One can only prove a positive... and then only to the satisfaction of the rationalmind which is -to say the least - limited in scope.
I am still unconvinced by this video that the shroud if a fake. All of this is only speculation. Scientific testing and looking back in history suggests that the shroud is real.
But leonardo was obsessed with having the dimensions of the body perefect. He devoted his whole life to this. He would have known that the distance between the camera and the subject caused size imperfections and he would have kept making copies until he got it perfect. So why then did he not do this? why did he allow the portions of the body to be disproportionate. Very uncharacteristic of da vinci.
@oppsan A new piece of evidence has been added to this story: -- The shroud of Oviedo. This "face cloth" matches the Turin shroud in the blood stains that covered the face of the person buried. Even the polen particles, blood type, fibers, etc. All match. This shroud of Oviedo has been proven to date back to at least 400 AD. If those two shrouds were together at it's creation, then the theory of the Turin shroud being of the time of LDV is proven wrong.
Could that be true? The shroud was dated during 1260 to 1390. Leonardo lives from 1452 to 1519. He was born 62 years after the nearest dating. Has Leonardo painted (or worked) on a 100 to 250 year old cloth. Because the painting on the Shroud is not dated. It was only the cloth.
Art, science, philosophy, and even spiritualism have drove humanity to explore the world to uncover deep meaning; either philosophically or scientifically. Leonardo, along with other Renaissancne artists were perhaps, the most humanistic in all of Western European history. Long live humanity and our attempts towards understanding, no matter how futile or grand it may be.
Very interesting stuff. Thanks for posting it! I don't know if it's real or not but if it's a fake why was nothing else ever made like it back then or sense using the same technique? I would think there would be other examples of the technique used to make it.
Tommymech makes an excellent point,also you can barely see anything clearly on the "non-negative" shroud until you're at least 2 metres/6 feet away,dear old Lenny da vinci must have had a heck of a long paint brush and the strength of an ox!
We all know that the last supper took place in the Bible , but is Leonardo da Vinci , the great artist,was so stupid to put an image of a woman beside Jesus (as some presumed) and contradict the reality of the Bible,while on the shroud and in details he never missed not even one single detail of a tortured,beaten and crucified Man-God !
If Mary Magdalene was the one beside Jesus, why there was 12 disciples in the painting ?
If Magdalene was there & Judas as well, shouldn't they be 13 ?
Leonardo da Vinci , doesn't have the serenity on his face , that the face on the shroud has .
The shroud and the Man-God figure on the shroud was mentionned in the Bible .
The details of a beaten , tortured and crucified Man-God figure on the shroud was amazingly detailed in the Holy Bible .
BUT
The painting of the last supper , da Vinci's masterpiece that some say it show's the face of Mary Magdalene beside Jesus wasn't mentionned in the Bible !
I don't agree with the person you're with, but aren't most scientists "spiritual" when uncovering nature's secrets?
To comai2212, Faith in Science to better the world from its problems is admirable, but faith in religious fundamentalism is the world's poison. That's it and I'll leave it at that :P (message to the fanatics outthere)
There are things in science that have been proven wrong. Can you show me 1 thing in the Bible that has been proven wrong? I think not. That is suppose to be John by Jesus. If it is Mary M. I guess John went for Pizza.
whether the shroud is fake or not neither adds nor detracts from my faith,but there has been a recent dicovery of a Hungarian dipiction of the burial of Christ with distinct signs the artist had seen the shroud and was copying details into his picture,namely, the "L" shaped series of holes seen in the shroud to-day,this picture has been dated by experts to predate by around two hundred years the birth of Da Vinci.So he invented negative photography and pre-birth art?Your video's just plain DAFT!
Are we expected to believe that someone who never showed any interest in the crucified Christ studied crucifiction in detail as claimed here? Why? Is there any evidence for this? This I suspect is fiction presented to back up a theory without foundation.
I'm not saying that the shroud is genuine just that the logic behind this series of videos is seriously flawed.
Even if the shroud were to be genuine it should in no way be venerated let alone worshipped - that's idolatory.
The one big fly in the ointment of this series of videos is that Leonardo would not have had any means to view the image in the negative. The amount of detail consistent with it being the image of a real crucifiction victim is astonishing (see other video series). Why would Leonardo go to such extreme lengths to fake the consequences of crucifiction when he couldn't ever have seen the results of his handiwork? The image, when not in the negative, shows no detail at all.
This has been flagged as spam show
A new piece of evidence has been added to this story: -- The shroud of Oviedo. This "face cloth" matches the Turin shroud in the blood stains that covered the face of the person buried. Even the polen particles, blood type, fibers, etc. All match. This shroud of Oviedo has been proven to date back to at least 400 AD. If those two shrouds were together at it's creation, then the theory of the Turin shroud being of the time of LDV is proven wrong.
ZerpaLuis 2 weeks ago
Leonardo da Vinci <3
urielorellana7 2 months ago
I would ask any one with the least bit of interest in this facinating topic get the book by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince "How Leonardo Fooled History;The Turin Shroud". A very well done piece of research by these two authors whose conclusion is obvious. People should not get excited because Israeli scientists recently found some "pollen from the Middle East" on the shroud. Not unexpected to have Israel and the Vatican holding hands on this 'political' issue.
tjrxk7 3 months ago
I am an atheist and the shrould of turin used to worry me but not anymore! There is no evidence at all that Leonardo could not have done this.
Like and favorite.
AtheismIsCorrect 5 months ago
The using of a plate of glass with the figure drawn by mean of chiaroscuro technique as negative plate ( like do it the photographers during revealing process of any photo) would explain why the image looks so flat, burned and blurred and produces 3D pattern. This technique isn´t so unusual if we consider that people used to place curtains in front of stained glass windows and there were a lot of sensitive substances to sunlight during Mid Age. Our curtains are "printed" by sunlight gradually.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The using of a plate of glass with the figure drawn by mean of chiaroscuro technique as negative plate (like do it the photographers during revealing process of any photo) would explain why the image looks so flat, burned and blurred. This technique is not so unusual if we consider that people used to place curtains in front of stained glass windows and there were a lot of sensitive substances to sunlight during Mid Age, even today our curtains are "printed" by sunlight gradually.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
I think the shroud is clever forgery, I thought that before I viewed this series I still think it is! But even if it were real. I wouldn't go bow down to it. Worship the true living God. Don't worship idols, cloths, crosses, or mummies of dead saints. To do so, is an abomination to the true living God.
RudeAwakning 1 year ago
Leonardo > god
louisuniverse 1 year ago 2
This guy Leonardo must be the greatest mind ever
Thechalfonts 1 year ago
What about the fact that the extraordinary photographic properties of the shroud cannot even be replicated exactly today, let alone in the middle ages? If Leonoardo really did invent the worlds first camera why didn't he draw pictures of his invention like he did with all of his other inventions?
GwynThomasWales 1 year ago
@Gwyn Thomas Wales I think the documentary focuses on the possibility that one such as Leonardo could have artistically done such a thing, in part 3 or 4 was convincing saying that it couldn't have been wrapped around the head or else the face would be disfigured/ features stretched apart etc, so it was burned or chemically or light emitted, we don't even know how egyptians made super laser like cuttings in there architecture, its a strange world we live in.
DeanoPiano 1 year ago
@GwynThomasWales he did- not the first camera either. His camera oscura he called artiificial ocularis- artificial eye. Its in his notebook.
6Man666666 1 year ago
Comment removed
DocMagister 1 year ago
@DocMagister There was a shroud- there was a worse fake before Leo. It looked like a painting and a local priest wrote to the Pope which at the time was part of the Savoy Family and was taken out of circulation. When it was exhibited again it was a better thing. After Leo's shroud was possibly cr4eated. We have no evidence it was the same shroud. Many other relics like the nails, the 1000 splinters of the cross... all of this was very common
6Man666666 1 year ago
@6Man666666 I just find it hard to believe that Leo could have invented a brand new photographic process and created a unique work of art that couldn't be appreciated in all its fine detail for another 500 years until the introduction of photography. Had Leo invented photography why on earth didn't he publicise it or write about it in his secret journals. Of course, the even more disturbing question is who did he torture and crucify beforehand.
DocMagister 1 year ago
@DocMagister he had access to cadavers. There are notes of his camera oscura, called artificial ocularis. the shroud image doesn't match front with back and the head is smaller than it should be- its three photos. He crucified a dead man. And used his own face.
6Man666666 1 year ago
@6Man666666 I have a problem with your theory because it doesn't fit the scientific facts that we know about the shroud. For example, pathologists know that the body that was wrapped in the shroud had been brutally tortured and crucified. They can see that the wounds from the flogging and the nails were caused when the person was alive and the wound in the side was caused after death exactly to match the wounds suffered by Jesus. If Leo faked the shroud then he also a bloody murderer.
DocMagister 1 year ago
@DocMagister first of all- no one was wrapped in the shroud. If they had been and the shroud had been imprinted the picture would suffer the distortion of a flat surface wrapping a globe. In forensics you call that a globe effect, the face would look disproportionate flattened, and it doesn't' It looks like a photograph.
6Man666666 1 year ago
@DocMagister second its not my theory but the theory of scientists that fitt the available evidence.
Third, yes, I agree with you about the face. It is beaten and it has the marks of punctures on the forehead. The intriguing part is that the bone structure matches Leonardo's. The rest of the body is of different proportion to the head. The head doesn't correspond to the body and the back doesn't correspond to the front in size, so looks like 3 diff photos. Head, torso, back.
6Man666666 1 year ago
@DocMagister and finally , having corpses at your disposal doesn't make you a murderer. You could say he probably desecrated a dead body tho and you would be right.
The case is strongest when he was working for the Savoy at the same time they were in possession of the original fake. Recognised as an object of embarrassment by the previous Pope and recalled from its place of exhibition for being a clearly painted fake.
The possibility of a man made shroud is a bigger possibility to me than magic.
6Man666666 1 year ago
@6Man666666 Ok - let us for a moment imagine that Leo invented the camera and managed to photograph a corpse who had been suffered wounds exactly matching the Biblical accounts. Did he put the bloodstains on before or after taking the photograph? The blood was on the shroud before the image formed. How did he manage that? How did get three separate "photographs" onto the cloth to synch up so perfectly? All using a technology that wasn't used again for three hundred years?
DocMagister 1 year ago
Leo was ambidextrous. Could paint two images at a time or work with a single image, using both hands at a time. He is a legend artist. His works are still under research. He was an equally good musician, and a scientist. Super talented. When Leonardo is in, strong possibilities are in!
artistdigital 1 year ago
@DocMagister he had access to cadavers. There are notes of his camera oscura, called artificial ocularis. the shroud image doesn't match front with back and the head is smaller than it should be- its three photos. He crucified a dead man. And used his own face.
Camera oscura was not a new invention. It was around back then and before.
6Man666666 1 year ago
I found this to be a very frustrating documentary - what exactly is the link between Leonardo and the Shroud of Turin? What about the extraordinarily similar looking Mandylion (or Edessa Cloth) that was stolen by the Knights Templar about a hundred years before the shroud of Turin showed up in a family connected to the Knights Templar?
GwynThomasWales 1 year ago
Art the end of this video the narrator quotes from the "Apostles". She says "Search for the glory of Jesus and not his funeral shroud". Can someone tell me where I can find this quote. It does not appear in the Bible.
GwynThomasWales 1 year ago
Well I'm convinced that the face in the shoud is NOT a jew from ancient Israel, I've always wondered why the face looked so "european" and such a tall person, for 1 st century AD! the average male would've been lucky to be 5'5 tall. Plus this image looks a lot older than a man of 36 as many think Christ was killed at this age.
CreoleCommando 1 year ago
Hey guys. If yall did sonme research than this video, your opinions may change. First there two copies of the Shroud. First seen in 1353 in the churrch of Lirey. there was a painted male on the cloth and written documents that confiirm this. In 1453 the shroud was given to the Savoy Family. and was not shown to the public for 40yrs. During the 40 yrs, the savoy and the medici family was Leonardos patrons.
Fish8705 2 years ago
The carbon dating was wrong, scientists have concluded that a long time ago. You can read that in e.g. Thermo Chimica Acta, Jan. 2005. Facts like that don't make the big headlines. In any case: they took samples of mid eval repair patches. Also the method was completely wrong (several pieces of 1 area instead of several areas). So we can forget about that carbon dating. Besides, carbon dating has been wrong in many cases (mummies being much older than the linen they ware wrapped in at burial).
defend0001 2 years ago
@defend0001
Actually, the cabon dating is correct. The problem is, is that the fire that the shroud was in may have skewed the results to a younger age. BUT... carbon dating professionals said, that even taking the fire into consideration, it would have only skewed the shroud a few hundred years, SO in that case, the shroud would have be fabricated in the 9th - 10th century. An older fake, but a fake none the less.
daimyo2k 1 year ago
What a wonderful hypothesis. Either it's real, or the greatest conspiracy of all time.
MrZetterlund777 2 years ago
Interesting video, thanks. But it's not very convincing, where's the proof? I've read some books on the shroud and it seems there are many scientists, also many non-christians, who believe it's real. Some even started out trying to find a quick proof against it and be done with it. Instead they came to the conclusion that it has no paint, has 3d info, real blood (some only visible under UV light) and there is no error, none at all. Even the way the blood flows is correct (pos. of arms on cross)!
defend0001 2 years ago
As said, Davinci wasn't even born yet! As for that camera idea, yeah, let's take a CORRECTLY(!!!) tortured and crucified corpse, hang it on a rope for 8 days (front and back) so an image can form and let's hope that body doesn't decompose after 3 days. And of course: place blood on the linnen first and make sure the image falls perfectly on the right places with. It doesn't matter what is easy or hard to believe, the truth counts. Our very existence was also hard to believe 13 billion years ago.
lijkwade 2 years ago
@lijkwade
there is no actual blood on the cloth
he got an old linen, and it was imported from Palestine to Italy. Do you think he would have made the shroud out of new material? Then how would anyone think it should be old? Also, the original "shroud" you speak of was a dubious fake. A horrible one, that everyone even the local bishop knew who forged it.
All of your points are addressed in the entire documentary which you failed to watch.
Also..You don't need a corpse, you can use a statue.
burnzorz 2 years ago
There is real blood on the shroud, confirmed by several scientists, it even has a high bilirubin content..!
Many people WANT to believe something and then a LOGICAL discussion is impossible. I sugest you do real THOUROUGH and UNBIASED research. When you have ALL the FACTS there remains little doubt about its authenticity. And why are you still talking about "he", Leonardo? As I said: they guy wasn't even born yet when the shroud was already in public display (not to mention its prior history)!
menno000 2 years ago
If you have to bring that up, you didn't watch the documentary. And if you did, you were probably reading your bible the entire time.
Shut up, and watch the video, you faggot.
Just because there is blood on the shroud does not mean it belongs to Jesus, when you provide a DNA sample of Jesus, we can begin the test. IT COULD HAVE BEEN ANYONE'S BLOOD!!!
WATCH THE FUCKING DOCUMENTARY BEFORE YOU GO AND VOMIT MORE VERBAL DIARRHEA ABOUT THINGS THAT THEY ALREADY ADDRESSED IN THE VIDEO!!!
burnzorz 2 years ago
Haha :) So you admit it is blood :) Nobody has said it's Jesus (yet), all I say is that it's a real crucified corpse, not a hoax, it's a real burial cloth. After having established that you can examine the real age, history and see how many people were crucified and tortured in this exact way... The fact that you use strong language shows you can't win this argument with logic. I can see you know nothing about the shroud!!! All the many amazing details that proof it's not man-made. Study facts!
lijkwade 2 years ago
I won't waste any more time on answering you, no use. You are not able to have a normal discusion and have to resort to using bad language because you simply don't have enough information and knowledge to win this argument or even understand what I'm talking about. I have studied the shroud a LOT more than you but I won't waste my time on you since you seek not truth but your own preconceived truth. And your bad language shows you're stupid, rude & chicken. If you were HERE you would be careful!
lijkwade 2 years ago
@lijkwade
I did not admit it was blood, I said, so what if it is...It still proves NOTHING.
I did study facts, you failed to watch the documentary at hand, and shot out your own set of B.S. and you're NOT entitled to your own set of facts. This discussion was about THIS video, and if you're too retarded to understand that, I hope to never hear a response from you again.
&
I don't give a flying fuck what you think my use of language means, especially when you constantly ignore the core message.
burnzorz 2 years ago
It is real blood and it's UNDERNEATH the image, if you can understand the significance of THAT you will understand that it DOES matter. But I guess you don't. But again: Leo wasn't born yet, so this whole video is based on a false and stupid idea. So your so called core message is wrong, Leo had nothing to do with the shroud. There are more reasons why not but the fact that he wasn't born yet should already suffice.
That was my final response, I won't waste any more time here. Have fun :)
lijkwade 2 years ago
@burnzorz It's pretty indisputable that there's real blood on the Shroud. Any indications to the contrary come from Walter McCrone who'm only raging skeptics still quote. Yes, you'll definently need a corpse, lol. It's brutal.
MrZetterlund777 2 years ago
It doesn't matter whether there is blood on the shroud or not. And to do make this clear, it's because the Catholic Church invited the experts of radiological carbon dating in to examine the Shroud of Turin...They publically announced with 95% certainty it was almost 1500 years older than Christ.
If god had to superimpose the blood and image of Christ 1500 years later, he isn't god. Furthermore, I find it comical Christianity needs proof. If you had any, it would eliminate the need for Faith.
burnzorz 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@burnzorz Multiple textile experts noticed a weaving pattern at the end of the cloth different from the rest of the cloth. Those are you "out of date" weaving styles on the cloth (I forget the name of the style.) Multiple textile experts stated that the ends appear to be re-woven with cotton. That section of the Shroud was even heavier than the other ends of the cloth. Sure enough, that was the section chosen to have the C-14 tests done. Faith doesn't mean the complete absense of evidence.
MrZetterlund777 2 years ago
An interesting documentary, but when alls said and done they do not give much evidense that da Vinci faked it. If it was faked why does it have to have been by a famous person? There was a lot of faking of relics about about this time many unknown people must have got very good at it.
commonberus 2 years ago
They say early on that it does not have to be Da Vinci, he is simply the best candidate from the time.
Valmarith 2 years ago
My stand on The Shroud Of Turin is simply this: If you are a sceptic, an agnostic, or even an atheist, you should be content with the way scientists have proven the less than divine qualities of the image. But if you have faith, would it kill you if you do not worship the cloth at all? If you worship Jesus or God, would it not be better to pray to him in your own personal way rather than put your stock in a piece of mere fabric?
zulby09 2 years ago 15
@zulby09 Isn't it just better for religious and sceptic to agree to disagree, let the skeptics have their scientific evidence and the religious keep their faith on it. I mean there's not much point in anyone trying to convince the other of what it is so just don't. Also i'm sure people don't worship the cloth, just like atheists don't worship science. Besides i'm sure these scientists spend a hell of a lot more time in researching the shroud than any religious person speaks of it.
diamond3187 1 year ago
Leonardo Da Vinci could be laughing in his grave or somewhere in the heavens, knowing that people are actually worshipping his image on the shroud, and challenging the scientific community into unravelling the secrets of his ingenuity...he was way ahead of their time hehehehehehehehe
zulby09 2 years ago
Da Vinci was born in 1452.
The Shroud was already in the possession of Geoffrey de Charny in 1349. This alone is enough to debunk this silly idea.
And there is historical and forensic evidence that the Shroud is even much older! By the way: the carbon dating has also been proven wrong in 2005 (Thermochimica Acta (Vol 425)).
As 8Thrist correctly said: the Shroud has 3D info, a photo would not. And the effort: hanging a crucified corpse for days, perfectly placed on all the blood stains..!
lijkwade 2 years ago
the photo obscura method would produce a 3d image on a sufrace such as linen, a result of a chemical burn. So its easier to believe a GOD man created an image through a central light source which radiated a piece of cloth to produce an image after death than to believe someone made it to use for political powers? WOW.
Myth and superstition with no evidence to support it. Dont forget to say God bless you when someone sneezes, the devil might posses them. Dont work on sunday.
passionpuertorico 2 years ago
Thats hot that Davinci knew that if we saw it with a camera it would be a 3d image. lol. Cmon! Ok. So Leonardo had his nose broken and cheek bruised to make it believable. Like they said it wasnt known till it was photographed that the nose was broken and etc. So.with all this considered they havent made thier point at all. But I definetly have a few unasnswered questions, Leonardo only made one self portrait. They make him sound like he wouldve had 100s. Why not paint himself as jesus?
8Thirst 2 years ago
It's ironic that the unbelievers who made this film used people of science who believe the shroud is authentic and carefully edited them. They didn't happen to mention this. They will do anything they can to bring down Christ with their nonsense, Real scientists say it's the true burial cloth of Christ. So get over it- get on your knees and pray!
helenw100 2 years ago
the maker of this move seems to be convinced that it is fake ... from the out set >
alaya10008 2 years ago 2
perhaps that's because it is
vulpecula999 2 years ago
alaya10008 2 years ago
organised religion sucks ass.chiv
cobradth 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Whoa - da vinci was good painting a picture, getting it to turn up so we could see it a a later date. putting pollens on it that correspond to it being the burial cloth of Jesus. and doing it so it would have a 3d image and blood type and roman coins deciphened on the eyes later!. These athesists even paid someone £1,000000 to prove it fake and gave him a chair in a university if he would say its a fake. Thats because they hate Jesus, but he is watching them and will judge them!
helenw100 2 years ago
hail hitler...
xCPTxxSINERx 2 years ago
The bible - the bits that aren't downright forgery - is a collection of myths. Nowt wrong with that - there are things too subtle for the rational mind, i.e. language, to grasp - so myths became the universal 'language' of 'unseen reality'. Prove the bible 'wrong' - if it is not literally true - it is impossible to prove that it did not happen? Prove a negative?.One can only prove a positive... and then only to the satisfaction of the rationalmind which is -to say the least - limited in scope.
zthetha 2 years ago
It is a Fake, like all the others that have been proven so. Deal with it!
4me2cclearly 3 years ago
I think it's just as foolish to base one's faith one the shroud's being a fake as it is on the shroud's being real...
quabot 2 years ago
Therefore, you are superior to all.
pikapikaichigo 2 years ago
for having a thought?
quabot 2 years ago
No. For having superior thoughts.
pikapikaichigo 2 years ago
ummmm... is that a plus?
quabot 2 years ago
That question is inferior. You are now balanced.
pikapikaichigo 2 years ago
I am still unconvinced by this video that the shroud if a fake. All of this is only speculation. Scientific testing and looking back in history suggests that the shroud is real.
Since33AD 3 years ago
But leonardo was obsessed with having the dimensions of the body perefect. He devoted his whole life to this. He would have known that the distance between the camera and the subject caused size imperfections and he would have kept making copies until he got it perfect. So why then did he not do this? why did he allow the portions of the body to be disproportionate. Very uncharacteristic of da vinci.
marzipan260 3 years ago
Perhaps he did it to leave clues to future scientists so we could realize how foolish we've been?
pikapikaichigo 2 years ago
Leonardo is The Man!
oppsan 3 years ago 17
This has been flagged as spam show
@oppsan A new piece of evidence has been added to this story: -- The shroud of Oviedo. This "face cloth" matches the Turin shroud in the blood stains that covered the face of the person buried. Even the polen particles, blood type, fibers, etc. All match. This shroud of Oviedo has been proven to date back to at least 400 AD. If those two shrouds were together at it's creation, then the theory of the Turin shroud being of the time of LDV is proven wrong.
ZerpaLuis 2 weeks ago
what a genius da vinci was........ if you think it is really jesus you are brain washed or retarded
tommyenglish1 3 years ago 4
Could that be true? The shroud was dated during 1260 to 1390. Leonardo lives from 1452 to 1519. He was born 62 years after the nearest dating. Has Leonardo painted (or worked) on a 100 to 250 year old cloth. Because the painting on the Shroud is not dated. It was only the cloth.
walthain 3 years ago
Art, science, philosophy, and even spiritualism have drove humanity to explore the world to uncover deep meaning; either philosophically or scientifically. Leonardo, along with other Renaissancne artists were perhaps, the most humanistic in all of Western European history. Long live humanity and our attempts towards understanding, no matter how futile or grand it may be.
Viahandel06 3 years ago 3
Very interesting stuff. Thanks for posting it! I don't know if it's real or not but if it's a fake why was nothing else ever made like it back then or sense using the same technique? I would think there would be other examples of the technique used to make it.
fister10 3 years ago
Tommymech makes an excellent point,also you can barely see anything clearly on the "non-negative" shroud until you're at least 2 metres/6 feet away,dear old Lenny da vinci must have had a heck of a long paint brush and the strength of an ox!
016511 3 years ago
Oh yeah ! .. I forgot , it's another da Vinci's unsolved codes :) .. IoI
comali2212 3 years ago
The real forgery is in the mind of those people who are trying desperately like the pharesees of those days , to deny the reality of Jesus Christ .
And as usual , they will always be defeated by the way , the truth and the light .
comali2212 3 years ago
We all know that the last supper took place in the Bible , but is Leonardo da Vinci , the great artist,was so stupid to put an image of a woman beside Jesus (as some presumed) and contradict the reality of the Bible,while on the shroud and in details he never missed not even one single detail of a tortured,beaten and crucified Man-God !
If Mary Magdalene was the one beside Jesus, why there was 12 disciples in the painting ?
If Magdalene was there & Judas as well, shouldn't they be 13 ?
comali2212 3 years ago
The bible is a joke.
Move along and stop spamming, jesus monkey.
castletriglav 3 years ago 4
hmmmm ... not everything the apostles said was in the bible , any idiot would know that ..
So as I understand from yor words , that you're an idiot , correct me if I'm wrong .
you said that not me , LOL
comali2212 3 years ago
Seems you're a joke yourself , go find a harry potter book and read it , you might find more serious issues in it than just a joke .
comali2212 3 years ago
Leonardo da Vinci , doesn't have the serenity on his face , that the face on the shroud has .
The shroud and the Man-God figure on the shroud was mentionned in the Bible .
The details of a beaten , tortured and crucified Man-God figure on the shroud was amazingly detailed in the Holy Bible .
BUT
The painting of the last supper , da Vinci's masterpiece that some say it show's the face of Mary Magdalene beside Jesus wasn't mentionned in the Bible !
comali2212 3 years ago
Science and faith don't go together, you've chosen faith... wrong choice!
expatdk 3 years ago 5
expatdk , You forgot history , geoghraphy and archeology , or aren't they in your agenda .
comali2212 3 years ago
I don't agree with the person you're with, but aren't most scientists "spiritual" when uncovering nature's secrets?
To comai2212, Faith in Science to better the world from its problems is admirable, but faith in religious fundamentalism is the world's poison. That's it and I'll leave it at that :P (message to the fanatics outthere)
Viahandel06 3 years ago 3
science and faith belongs together. and who are you to decide what choice is right for others?
Azargo 3 years ago
There are thing in science that have been proven wrong. Can you show me 1 thing in the Bible that has been proven wrong. NO YOU CAN NOT!
thnana50 2 years ago
There are things in science that have been proven wrong. Can you show me 1 thing in the Bible that has been proven wrong? I think not. That is suppose to be John by Jesus. If it is Mary M. I guess John went for Pizza.
thnana50 2 years ago
whether the shroud is fake or not neither adds nor detracts from my faith,but there has been a recent dicovery of a Hungarian dipiction of the burial of Christ with distinct signs the artist had seen the shroud and was copying details into his picture,namely, the "L" shaped series of holes seen in the shroud to-day,this picture has been dated by experts to predate by around two hundred years the birth of Da Vinci.So he invented negative photography and pre-birth art?Your video's just plain DAFT!
016511 3 years ago
It's said is fake but I read carbono 14 revealed many years before Leonardo
varoprats 3 years ago
umm...not everything the apostles said was in the bible. any idiot would know that
angiepanzy 3 years ago
obviously, but he asks a legitimate question. Where is this written?
jumanous 3 years ago
Are we expected to believe that someone who never showed any interest in the crucified Christ studied crucifiction in detail as claimed here? Why? Is there any evidence for this? This I suspect is fiction presented to back up a theory without foundation.
I'm not saying that the shroud is genuine just that the logic behind this series of videos is seriously flawed.
Even if the shroud were to be genuine it should in no way be venerated let alone worshipped - that's idolatory.
tommymech 4 years ago
The one big fly in the ointment of this series of videos is that Leonardo would not have had any means to view the image in the negative. The amount of detail consistent with it being the image of a real crucifiction victim is astonishing (see other video series). Why would Leonardo go to such extreme lengths to fake the consequences of crucifiction when he couldn't ever have seen the results of his handiwork? The image, when not in the negative, shows no detail at all.
tommymech 4 years ago
"1500 hundred years before Leonardo the apostles wrote - 'search for the glory of Jesus and not his funeral shroud'".
Where exactly did the apostles write this? Its not from the Bible.
tommymech 4 years ago