|
Relic, The (1997)
IMDB rating: 5.20
Plot: A researcher at Chicago’s Natural History Museum returns from South America with some crates containing his findings. When the crates arrive at the museum without the owner there appears to be very little inside. However, police discover gruesome murders on the cargo ship that brought the crates to the US and then another murder in the museum itself. Investigating the murders is Lt. Vincent D’Agosta who enlists the help of Dr. Margo Green at the museum – she has taken an interest in the contents of her colleague’s crates. Unknown to both there is a large creature roaming the museum which is gearing itself up for a benefit reception which the city’s mayor is to attend.
|
Directors: Hyams Peter
Actors: Sizemore Tom,Whitmore James,Rohner Clayton,Lo Chi Moui,Ryan Thomas,Lesser Robert,Van Bergen Lewis,McCarthy Francis X.,Kapelos John,Wells Tico,Horror,Thriller,
does anyone still believe the turin shroud is really the shroud of jesus?
The image seems to be a photograph — so could the Turin Shroud actually be the world’s first photograph?
If the face of the man on the Shroud is not Jesus’, whose is it?
Who had the sheer audacity to create what would become an infamous relic of Christianity, faking even Christ’s holy, redemptive blood?
Whoever did this was not only a genius but also a heretic….
After more than a decade of research, Picknett and Prince have accumulated evidence that shows not only was the forger of the Turin Shroud none other than Leonardo da Vinci but also that he used his own face for that of Christ. The Turin Shroud is, among other things, a five-hundred-year-old photograph of Leonardo da Vinci. Could Christianity’s greatest relic in fact be an attempt to undermine the religion itself?
http://www.flipkart.com/turin-shroud-lyn n-picknett-clive/0743292170-l5w3fnju8b
isn’t ironic that the catholic church have deemed leonardo da vinci a holy relic?
(just to add, scientists have compared the mona lisa with a portrait of da vinci and found that he used his own face as a template for that painting as well)
Smoke and mirrors. It is all mumbo jumbo.
| Jan 13, 2010
I do not.. But at the same time, I don’t believe (off hand) that it was Leonardo.
I would need to review all the data that lead the author to suggest that… But really, I couldn’t care less.
–Atheist
Allen | Jan 13, 2010
Its a fake created in medival times.
Sandra | Jan 13, 2010
Yes, I do.
I don’t think it’s a fake at all.
The Catholic Church has not made a declaration on the Shroud as authentic or not. They have said that people are free to believe it or not believe it.
I listened to a talk on the Shroud, and there is quite a bit of evidence in support of it’s authenticity. There is blood splatter consistent with the wounds of a crucified person, that cannot be seen by the naked eye. This blood splatter could only be seen when a picture was taken with a special camera. How could Leonardo da Vinci paint unseen blood specks? And even if he could, why would he do that? Could he have anticipated a camera that would one day pick them up?
Also, it is real blood, so if they faked it they used real blood. The image also has no thumbs visible which is consistent with someone who had a nail run through the middle of their wrist. This is something scientists only recently discovered. How is it that the artist knew to make the thumbs unseen in the picture? Also, most pictures show Christ with the nails through his hands, and yet the Shroud shows the wounds on his wrists.
There is much, much more that just boggles the mind when you try to make it fit the idea of a medieval forgery. There are too many things that have been discovered only recently that were not known in medieval times, and yet appear as part of the image of the Shroud.
Misty | Jan 13, 2010
The Turin Shroud, is without any doubt, the work of Leonardo da Vinci . . . Not only was he an absolute genius (in every sense of those words) he was also a show-off and a MAN who strived for historical acclaim. And rightly so.
I do not know, how much you yourself, have been influenced by, or have been researching "The Shroud," but there are undisputed "FACTS" which are certain….:
The linear facial structures of the shroud, are exacting to those of da Vinci,himself.
Over and above and perhaps even more remarkable, is that both the shroud AND The Mona Lisa (arguable da Vinci’s most famous of works and certainly the most valuable of paintings as known to man?) have the same exacting resemblances. In other words,:-
Leonado da Vinci; The Mona Lisa AND The Turin Shroud, are-the-one-the-same.
Geometrically and artistically. ALL THREE, ARE AND HAVE BEEN, MADE BY THE ONE PERSON AND ARE THE ONE SAME PERSON! Albeit, painted or obscured upon different materials at different periods of time.
Take a look at the Mona Lisa! Then take a look at an actual portrait of da Vinci himself at the time he executed this painting. The facial structures of BOTH (i.e. how the features of both are portrayed and depicted) are both one the same…. Their eyes, ears, mouths etc. are exactly placed and precisely matched and you ain’t getting THAT unless you are twinned! Not even by The by hands of GOD or Allah!!!!!! hee hee hee.
. … The same can be said regarding the Turin Shroud. PERIOD!
i.e. Using same size scales
1. Take a transparent of The Turin Shroud.
2. Take a transparent of Leonado da Vinci
3. Take a transparent of the Mona Lisa . . .
4. . . . Place each transparency, one over the other and one over each in any format, and the facial features and placements of each and every FACIAL FEATURE, within all three, will become a perfect match!
SUCH WAS THE GENIUS OF DA VINCI! Such was his "Game for a Laugh!"
He KNEW that we, and all others, would be inspired by his works and would question them. Such are the motives of an "ARTIST," perhaps! To PUSH boundaries. To FAKE without faking. To portray the real by brushstroke & pen so as to deceive? In other words: TO DECEIVE "THE EYE" through artistic licence and skill. Da Vinci, achieved that and without any question.
QUESTION: Was Da Vinci, the best artist or "deceiver" to have lived thus far?
NO
Was Jesus Christ, Wrapped in a shroud (of which has been scientifically
proven to have been been "woven" some FOUR HUNDRED YEARS LATER ) !
NO.
ANSWER: Only one remains without pedigree & provenance: JESUS! For there remains no founded records. Da Vinci, on the other hand, categorically existent. Period.. No If’s or but’s!
Believe what you may, but no such miracles, by God, by Jesus or by McDonald’s, miracles of commandment! THE TURIN SHROUD exists because it does: it does NOT exist due to "The Willl of a God" It was, made by MAN. For man.
THE TURIN SHROUD IS NOT A HOAX but it most certainly is a load of old B++++++s.
THE TURIN SHROUD IS A "WORK OF GENIUS"
A WORK, BY ONE: LEONARDO DA VINCI. A True GOD without any falsehood of "so called" religion. A God of SKILL. A man who was and also lived by example, just as you and I. He was not a legend or a hope that is expressed! Unlike a Jesus, an Allah or a Buddha.
The sentiment exists for religious belief, but where be the proof! .
So fool the man who thinks otherwise. . .
AMEN
glassman | Jan 13, 2010
Some Freemasons said it was fake, big deal, they are liars. It’s also not a photograph by the way. Sometimes when you investigate other people claims you should actually read *their* material instead of just typing "shroud of turin fake" into google. And by "their material" I mean this video: http://store.mostholyfamilymonastery.com /dvjeandshoft.html
Good luck!
OneWhoQuotesDogma | Jan 13, 2010
While I believe the shroud is a medieval fake, it could not have been created by Leonardo da Vinci. The provenance of the shroud is definitively confirmed from 1357 to today. Leonardo was born a century too late to have made it.
It’s (slightly) possible that at some point during his life the shroud’s owners, the ducal House of Savoy, commissioned him to make a copy of the original (which they owned since he was just a year old – all the way to 1983).
It this is true, then either the original already looked like him – making the resemblance irrelevant – or nobody noticed the change – which is patently ridiculous, given its fame at the time.
skeptik | Jan 13, 2010
