Author: Howard Brown
Saturday, 24 August 2002 - 07:22 pm |        |
| Just a thought..........I'd guess that the person(s) are here at Casebook. Yeah,I know a fair amount believe in its authenticity,but....I'm sure that he/she/they are getting a big kick outta all the arguing and fighting and posts in general.......What do you think? |
Author: Caroline Morris
Sunday, 25 August 2002 - 06:43 am | |
Hi Howard,
What do you consider to be a 'fair amount'? Are you talking here on the casebook message boards, or out there in the big wide world? Cos there ain't nobody here but us chickens, who don't believe in the diary's authenticity. And we've been assured that beyond these sacred walls, the diary is as dead as a very dead thing, because everyone out there *knows* it's a modern fake, created by the Barretts of Win-Gold Street in two weeks during the summer of '89, when they had nothing better to do and were a trifle behind with the mortgage payments.
But maybe you're right. Many have already voiced their suspicions that the real forger is right here among us, getting a thrill out of the funny little game he or she has had with us over the years, and giving us a quick prod every now and then to keep the debate smouldering.
Chris George, originally from Liverpool, is obviously as shifty as hell; John Omlor has the right initials to have been up to his neck in watch scratches (hope the cream I sent him did the trick); and as for that tricky Martin Fido, giving the diary boards a wide berth doesn't fool everyone, chummy.... 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 25 August 2002 - 07:03 am | |
Heh! Heh! Heh!
Martin F |
Author: Caroline Morris
Sunday, 25 August 2002 - 07:23 am | |
Notice that, Howard?
A deliberate but foolishly transparent attempt to distance himself from the forger's characteristic ha ha ha
Love,
Miss Marple |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 25 August 2002 - 07:47 am | |
Sorry I didn't underline... but, curse it! I don't know how to do it in this space. Unlike I, Caz evidently does. You'll hear more of her funny little tricks after the 1st inst. The phoenix builds the phoenix' nest. Heh! Heh!
Thomas J.Wise II |
Author: Howard Brown
Sunday, 25 August 2002 - 08:15 am | |
| You opened up Mr. Fido like a "ripe peach",Ms.Morris....didn't take long for him to 'fess up......hey.this crime-solving is a piece of cake !!! Howie Barrett |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Sunday, 25 August 2002 - 02:24 pm | |
Howard Brown,
When you say is the forger amongst us, do you mean is he or SHE alive or dead? Because if he or she is still amongst us, it could be living proof that there is life after death after all!
WATCH this space, things can mysteriously move.
A. |
Author: Howard Brown
Sunday, 25 August 2002 - 02:58 pm | |
| Yeah....I forgot to include the spirit world. Thanks ! |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Sunday, 25 August 2002 - 03:10 pm | |
Hello Martin F,
Do you have Golden-Grahams for breakfast?
Is this brekkie cereal available in the good old US of A?
A. |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 25 August 2002 - 03:45 pm | |
I don't think so, Andy. But every American will recognize the phrase 'Graham crackers', which might imply anything.... (tho' 'Barrett crackers' would be more appropriate, perhaps).
Howard - has it ockurred to you, dear old Boss, that funny games with a knif in search of the real red stuff might come YOUR way if you give the game away. |
Author: Ally
Sunday, 25 August 2002 - 03:55 pm | |
Oh Martin, Martin, Martin 
Get thee to a grocery store man!
Golden Grahams absolutely are available in the good ole US of A and a tasty cone substitute for chocolate icecream.
Ally (who is on her way to the pantry inspired by this thread) |
Author: Howard Brown
Sunday, 25 August 2002 - 04:31 pm | |
| Golden Grahams are staple diet, Mishtuh and Mishus Parlour.....very good,had some with a Rolling Rock beer.........Good luck looking for me,Mistuh Fido.....I'll be at the jewelers,having my watch scratched........Sir Howie of Battle Creek |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 25 August 2002 - 07:44 pm | |
Andy and Sue,
Have you been to St Mary's Church, Templecombe ? What date did the carbon dating place the Shroud of Turin ? |
Author: Harry Mann
Monday, 26 August 2002 - 04:34 am | |
Howard,
Did you Leint your Rolling Rock beer before drinking. |
Author: Howard Brown
Monday, 26 August 2002 - 05:42 am | |
| Dear Mr. Mann...Yes sir....all 14 of 'em |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Monday, 26 August 2002 - 09:02 am | |
Hello Ivor,
No we have never been to that church.
Regarding the Turin shroud I do have some thoughts though.
I firmly believe that it was the 'death' shroud that was used to wrap the body of Jacques de Molay, born 1244 who was elected Grand Master of the Knight Templars in 1292 or early 1293.
He was arrested in the purge against the Templars in 1307, crucified but not killed, taken from the cross while still alive and wrapped in the shroud and removed from the scene. He resurfaces several times in the next 6 years proclaiming Templars innocent of all charges laid against them in 1307. Captured in 1309 and again in 1314 he is tortured many times, tried and found guilty of heresy. Jacques de Molay is burnt at the stake in the year 1314 in Paris.
Therefore shroud dates from 1307. It is re-discovered and shown 1357 and in the family of Geoffrey de Charney the second in 1389.
The shroud finds its way to the Turin Cathedral in 1578.
Any help Ivor?
Andy. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 26 August 2002 - 10:44 pm | |
| Hi Andy and Sue,That information was a great help and many thanks.Went down to Exmoor for a few days and on the way stopped at Templecombe.In 1185 the Knights Templar acquired property on the manor and established a Preceptory,or station for members, of the order. The Preceptory was responsible for managing the Templar's estates in the West Country,admitting new members to the order, and training men and horses for service in the Crusades.We went into St Mary's Church at Templecombe which was established by the daughter of Alfred the Great.Saw a mediaeval painting on a wooden panel which was found by Mrs M Drew on the property of Mrs Topp in 1956. The panel has hinge marks and a key hole and was possibly a door at one time. What struck me was the fact that the painting was of a face not unlike that on the Shroud of Turin. What struck me straight away was the fact that the face on the panel ( with the mouth open as in death )was like the actual painting of a dead man. The panel has been carbon-dated at circa 1280AD.Looking at the picture on the panel and the face on the shroud I feel that there is some connection. I took photos of the panel which is behind glass to protect it.Knowing you are interested in the Templars I wondered if you would like a photo of the face on the panel.The theory is that the Templars obtained the Holy Shroud, brought it to Europe and, from it copied their paintings. The big problem with this theory which I have found is that if the shroud is dated at around 1307AD and the panel painting is circa 1280AD then the panel could not have been copied off the shroud. So I wondered if the shroud was copied from the panel.Tests taken on the shroud indicate the face was painted on and I understand further tests are to take place. |
Author: brad mcginnis
Tuesday, 27 August 2002 - 12:31 am | |
Ivor, Andy and Sue,
The shroud is a can of worms with many explainations. While most science dates it to the 12 or 13 century via carbon 14 dating, pollin from much earlier has been found in its fibers. An object such as this is very hard to date because it has been handeled alot and subjected to alot of carbon based exposure. The guys who exhibited put their hands on it. Pollen and dust has settled on it. It has been trotted out on numerous occasions to be displayed so it remains an enigma. As someone who is interested in the truth, history, and the ancients I think the shroud tells us we need to learn alot more than we know. Im open to all theories, and sadly after many years I dont have a good Ripper suspect. Except it wasnt Maybrick, or Caroll.
Ally...hope Dad gets better, my thoughts are with you.
Best wishes to all, Brad |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Tuesday, 27 August 2002 - 05:08 am | |
To Ivor & Brad,
My fascination with the Templars goes back many years. To the times of King Richard the Lionheart and before. The shroud I have always believed was not that of Jesus Christ but I can understand the fervour it has created. The carbon dating is quite accurate at 1280AD. 1307AD when I believe the shroud dates from, is well within the allowances, being only 27 years. The information on Templecombe Church you gave Ivor seems to back my theory even more.
Brad, I have seen the reports on pollen etc found on the shroud, being made of a mix of cotton and flax the shroud would hold evidence of the plant for years. Also it was wrapped for years in other cotton based items which might have been older, perhaps they could have contaminated the shroud.
But we will never know the real truth.
Andy. |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 27 August 2002 - 08:58 am | |
Andy - What a fascinating speculation as to the real nature of the Turin shroud!
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 27 August 2002 - 09:43 am | |
I read an article last week that the Shroud is undergoing a new round of tests. The scientific community is very upset over it, because the gathering of samples and the testing itself are unsupervised.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Kevin Braun
Tuesday, 27 August 2002 - 09:57 am | |
Andy,
Fascinating indeed. I assume that you think there are no coins on the eyes, since de Molay was taken from the cross alive.
David,
I haven't heard of any new tests, however there seems to be a new debate on the accuracy of the 1988 radiocarbon test. See link here.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Tuesday, 27 August 2002 - 11:24 am | |
Kevin, Martin & Ivor,
It was custom going back to Biblical times to offer those crucified on the cross and on the verge of death a last drink, this I think was offered to Jacques de Molay, it was heavily drugged which more or less made him unconscious immediately, this to the unknowing eye would make him lifeless and apparently dead, his body could now be allowed to be claimed by his family. He was taken down and wrapped in a cotton sheet. Whisked off to some hiding place and nursed back to health. Hence the origination of the shroud. The shroud would have been kept in a safe house and would be of great importance to followers of Molay, and when he was burnt at the stake in Paris in 1314 the shroud would have gained even more special significance. |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 27 August 2002 - 12:21 pm | |
I like it! I'm not a medievalist, of course, so my pleasure in it is no indication of historical probability. But I like it!
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 27 August 2002 - 12:27 pm | |
Hi, Kevin,
Thanks for the link--I'll check it out. Here's a link to a short article about the new testing by a Swiss textile expert, for anyone interested:
Turin shroud test stir protests from scientists
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 27 August 2002 - 05:06 pm | |
Hi, all:
I have read quite a bit on the Shroud of Turin but cannot claim to be a great expert in its study.
Kevin wrote to Andy about his theory that the man on the Shroud was Jacques de Molay, a man crucified but not killed in 1307: "I assume that you think there are no coins on the eyes, since de Molay was taken from the cross alive."
But a number of people have claimed to see the images of Biblical era coins on the eyes, specifically, as related on one website on the Shroud:
"About 1980, the late Rev. Francis Filas, S.J., of Loyola University in Chicago and Michael Marx, an expert in classical coins, examined the area over the right eye and detected patterns of what appeared to be the letters UCAI (from TIBERIOU CAISARUS) and a lituus design (an auger's staff). Father Filas concluded that this was a lituus lepton coin minted by Pontius Pilate between 29 and 32 CE. Over the left eye, Father Filas also identified what he believed to be a Juolia lepton with a distinctive sheaf of barley design. The Juolia lepton was only struck in 29 CE in honor of Tiberius Caesar's wife, Julia."
Father Filias's finding has it seems, as related on the site, been confirmed by researchers at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University's Spatial Data Analysis Laboratory (the same experts used by Patricia Cornwell, maybe? ) and by a researcher at Duke University.
If these people are right and there is evidence of images of Biblical era coins on the eyes it would appear to argue against Andy's theory that the Shroud dates from the 1300's and that the man pictured on the Shroud is Jacques de Molay.
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Chris Jd
Tuesday, 27 August 2002 - 06:06 pm | |
Hi Andy,
very interesting theory.
I have no expert knowledge whatsover in medieval history, but it seems odd to me that authorities in 1307 inflicted Jesus' punishment on a templar and crucified him.
Wouldn't that be considered a heresy?
regards
Christian |
Author: Garry Ross
Tuesday, 27 August 2002 - 06:27 pm | |
Evening all,
Jaques de Molay was an old man when this happened and if you look at the shroud it does look like an old man doesn't it?
Here's the story:-
"Although historically there is little if any record of exactly how de Molay was tortured, very shortly after his arrest France's Grand Inquisitor Guillaume Imbert put him through a blow-by-blow re-enactment of Jesus's crucifixion. First he was scourged. Then a crown of thorns was thrust on his head. Then nails were hammered into his wrists and feet, pinning him to 'a roughly assembled cross', or a large barn door on which he was hung in agony for several hours. Brought down alive, a knife was then thrust into his side 'not deep enough to cause life-threatening damage but sufficient to complete the deliberate re-enactment of the suffering of the 'son of God'.
de Molay was then placed on the very burial shroud that Molay used to mock the Messiah. As the torturers laid him face upwards on the cloth and the excess section is lifted over his head to cover the front of his body, Imbert cannot resist a final quotation from the story of the Passion: 'And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth.' Patting the shroud around the desperately damaged body, Imbert suggests that the barely conscious man might care to raise himself, if he feels as important as the true Christ."
Andy,
he was burnt at the stake in 1325 from what I've been told (by a slightly 'tiddly' freemason - but I've heard 1314 elsewhere too) and the drink you mentioned sounds very much like the drugged vinegar the 'real' Christ was given which made him appear lifeless in such a short time.(Have you been up to Rosslyn yet?)
Chris,
I'd be very suspicious of 'Revs' and 'Fathers' interpretations of the shroud, after all...they've got a business to keep running haven't they?
take care
Garry |
Author: David Radka
Tuesday, 27 August 2002 - 09:24 pm | |
For those who like the Medieval period (actually pre-Medieval I guess): Consult Langland's "Piers Ploughman," Passus 15, for a key clue on the meaning of the graffito.
In the Middle English--"Juwes han a lippe of oure bileve..." and following.
David |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Wednesday, 28 August 2002 - 01:00 am | |
Greetings all:
The theories on the shroud are interesting. I myself don't know what to think about its exact origins, but I do think that what it has come to represent is what's important.
My own Supreme Being beliefs aside, this whole idea of "being nice to one another" is a really nice concept. Kind of like Toronto, but not as clean.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Graham Jay
Wednesday, 28 August 2002 - 04:15 am | |
Chris,
If you take a look at this link:-
http://www.shroud.com/faq.htm#3
it suggests that the images Filas discovered were "are artifacts of clumped photographic grain, caused by the recopying and enhancement of grain structure from earlier generation photographs. This grain clumping is very common on high contrast or contrast enhanced films when copied over multiple generations."
Personally I think identifying a 2000yo coin on the basis of 4 letters suggests wishful thinking |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Wednesday, 28 August 2002 - 04:27 am | |
Garry,
Your post on the shroud echo my thoughts.
Regarding the image of the coins in, or on, the eyes seen on the shroud, for years it as been claimed you can see the image of an old man's face in the moon, I can't but there again I don't beleive it. But if others do so be it.
A. |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Wednesday, 28 August 2002 - 04:35 am | |
Hi Andy:
I agree; it's rather like seeing a shape in the clouds, or seeing the word "five" carved on MJK's face....
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 28 August 2002 - 10:00 am | |
Hi Graham and Andy:
I agree that much of this interpretation of what is on the Shroud is "in the eye of the beholder" much like the splashes and other marks in the photograph of Mary Jane Kelly's wall in Miller's Court! I thought though that I would bring up the fact that several people have claimed there is evidence of elements of Biblical coins on the eyes. I quite agree that this might be as per the link you posted, Graham, just an artifact of the photographic process. Did I ever show you the photograph of me with the ghost standing behind me. . .
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Kevin Braun
Wednesday, 28 August 2002 - 10:06 am | |
Chris, Andy, Gary, Graham
Here is Barrie Schwortz's, the gentleman quoted in Graham's link, statement on the coins.
My personal opinion, based on my photographic experience and my close examination of the Shroud itself, is that the weave of the cloth is far too coarse to resolve the rather subtle and very tiny inscription on a dime sized ancient coin...What he (Filas) saw as inscriptions, I saw as random shapes and noise. Such is the subjective nature of image analysis. For these reasons however, I cannot accept these coin "inscriptions" as viable evidence of a first century Shroud "date"...I do not argue that there appears to be something on the eyes of the man of the Shroud, and it may well be coins or potshards, since they were used in some first century burial rituals, but I do not believe we can resolve coin inscriptions.
(Bold is my emphasis)
He is not saying that there are no coins on the eyes, only that he doubts that they can be identified.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 28 August 2002 - 02:44 pm | |
Hi, Kevin:
Thanks for this information, Kevin!
Verrrrrry interrrrrresting as Arte Johnson used to say on the old "Laugh In" TV series!
So the circus goes on! 
Chris |
Author: Kevin Braun
Wednesday, 28 August 2002 - 03:34 pm | |
Chris,
Clip art foot fault. Second serve.
Nah
Hopefully I will not make that mistake again.
Kevin |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 28 August 2002 - 11:26 pm | |
Gary,
What do you know of Rosslyn ? and any particular reason why you mentioned it after your story about the drugged vinegar ? |
Author: Graham Jay
Thursday, 29 August 2002 - 06:37 am | |
Even if they were genuine 1st century coins, who's to say that wasn't part of mimicking the crucifixion. You can still pick them up on Ebay relatively cheaply!
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1374777068 |
Author: Garry Ross
Thursday, 29 August 2002 - 10:20 am | |
Ivor,
There's a story that the Templars/Masons had Rosslyn built as a copy of Solomons temple and the secret scrolls of Jesus are hidden in the pillars.
One of the main parts of Mason teachings is that Jesus never died on the cross and his bloodline survives to this day, this comes from the Templars too. To the Masons Jesus is the 'Grand Master'.
All interesting stuff so far and still tons to delve into
take care
Garry |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 29 August 2002 - 07:53 pm | |
Gary,
Very interesting stuff indeed and many thanks. |
Author: Eliza Cline
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 01:51 pm | |
From my understanding the image on the Shroud of Turin could not have been formed by wrapping an actual person in a cloth. THe face on the shroud is not distorted, indicating that the image was made by "action at a distance." If the cloth had been placed directly on top of someone's face, you would have a tenting effect from the nose of the person being wrapped, causing the face to appear distorted.
The face on the Shroud, while not distorted, is elongated, due in my opinion to the lensing effect one sees with cameras. In my opinion the Shroud represents a very early and primitive attempt at photography. |
Author: jennifer pegg
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 02:14 pm | |
hello
i thought jesus was resurected (and then milled around a bit?) b4 returning to heaven
jp |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Thursday, 12 September 2002 - 12:34 am | |
Dear Jennifer:
I suppose it depends on whether or not you believe in the resurrection.
Keeping religious opinions to herself,
Divia |
Author: jennifer pegg
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 08:56 am | |
allz i meant (im not saying i believe in the bible etc)was that therefore jesus never died on th cross but really its not important!
jp |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 10:37 am | |
Dear Jennifer:
According to the Bible (regardless of whether or not anyone believes it), Jesus did die on the cross. Three days later, he rose from his grave. He spent some time with his disciples before ascending into Heaven. And if you believe Joseph Smith, he also visited other parts of the world before returning to Heaven.
To say that he was resurrected means that he never died is not quite accurate. It means he came back to life.
Warm regards,
Divia |
