• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

New Pics of J.C. - History Channel Strikes Again

Foolmewunz

Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
Foolmewunz
Joined
Aug 11, 2006
Messages
41,468
Location
Pattaya, Thailand
Just in time for Easter.... Didn't they do The Historic Jesus about two years ago, and the Gospel of Judas last year? Well, this year, the History Channel(who, unfortunately, are not being sued to remove "History" from their name), continue in their Bible Thumpers' Gullibility Series and are doing Jesus portraits from the images on the (fraudulent) Shroud of Turin.

Perfect results, too. Looks like a medieval Italian more than anyone from the Middle East. (Love the lily white skin the computer graphics guy put on him, too!)

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/03/30/2246609.aspx?GT1=43001
 
Jesus Christ. :)

Of course it's just in time for Easter. And now they're saying that Jesus had Marfan's?

It's been a few years since I dipped into the Shroud ... but hasn't that been pretty much thoroughly debunked? IIRC, the head is anatomically disproportionate to the body, and the ongoing CT was that Da Vinci was the main man behind the photo/camera-obscura effect as well as getting a crucified body on hand or making his own or something to that effect. Is there an "official" debunking explanation that trumps the Da Vinci one?
 
I seem to recall that making the image is a fairly simple process and have seen several examples done by a prominent skeptic (can't quite remember who). Throughout the show they kept saying nobody can replicate the process. Time to dust off the investigoogling skills.
 
That didn't take long.
http://www.shroud.com/bar.htm#article
Letters to the Biblical Archeological Review has some serious problems with the shroud. Scientist claim there is no trace of blood and the pigment was well know in the 14th century.
ETA: Plenty of bitching and moaning further down the page.
 
Last edited:
During the show, I was wondering what version of the discovery that Jesus wasn't in the tomb they would use, or if they would even mention differing the differing accounts. They went with a lone Mary Magdalene, open tomb, no angels, Mary running and finding Peter and another. Peter getting there first, no angels and just the cloth. They then started talking about the properties of light?! WTF?
 
Hold on.


The history channel has a show that's not about Hitler or WW2?
 
The Shroud stuff is pretty stupid, but not as stupid as the 2012 crap THC was showing on Sunday.
 
Looks like the article posted by Alan Boyle "The Face in the Shroud" Foolmewunz linked to can be boiled down to a few key points:

...Downing used software to massage the 2-D data into 3-D imagery.
Click to expand...

By manipulating the computer model, Downing matched up the shroud's imprint with anatomical features drawn from more than 100 human scans.
Click to expand...


What a good (underhanded?) way to make money:
From a marketing perspective, the timing of the History Channel show couldn't be better: Good Friday and Easter Sunday, the Christian holy days that mark Jesus' death and resurrection, are just a few days away. What's more, the shroud is due to go on display for six weeks at Turin Cathedral, starting April 10. The last time the relic was exhibited, a decade ago, more than 3 million people came to Turin to see it. More than a million reservations have been received already for next month's viewing.
Click to expand...


If this is a documentary, why are the facts skewed? I would wish and expect to see a more fair and accurate program on The History Channel.
 
Last edited:
Wolrab said:
During the show, I was wondering what version of the discovery that Jesus wasn't in the tomb they would use, or if they would even mention differing the differing accounts. They went with a lone Mary Magdalene, open tomb, no angels, Mary running and finding Peter and another. Peter getting there first, no angels and just the cloth. They then started talking about the properties of light?! WTF?
Click to expand...

Did they even bother to say how, even if the shroud was genuine, prove it was Jesus, much less the supposed god-Jesus?
 
The comments are pretty depressing. A few rational people point out that the shroud dates to the 14th century. But this comment by Rene is pretty typical of the rest.

DOES IT REALLY MATTER IF ITS REAL OR NOT. THIS GIVES PEOPLE SOMETHING TO BELIVE IN. DONT LET SCIENCE RUIN THAT FOR US BELIEVER'S
Click to expand...

Steve S
 
steve s said:
The comments are pretty depressing. A few rational people point out that the shroud dates to the 14th century. But this comment by Rene is pretty typical of the rest.



Steve S
Click to expand...
LOL At least it's honest :). It's kind of like that guy on the side of the road with the sign in his hand that says, "Need money for alcohol please. God bless." :)
 
Minarvia said:
Did they even bother to say how, even if the shroud was genuine, prove it was Jesus, much less the supposed god-Jesus?
Click to expand...
That's just it also. It would still require "faith" to claim it was Jesus. Do we know what Jesus' DNA would look like? Was he the only person crucified at the time?

The idea was that the image was not reproducable or explainable by methods available at the time, but that has since been shown false IIRC ... again the camera obscura was one hypothesis I remember from years ago. But if it was "miraculous", it's easy to put the pieces together and see how 1+1=5. But it would still require "faith". How would you ever be able to prove 100% that it was Jesus who was under that shroud and not Jeezer Rosenabum Maricelli, the Christ to the Odessians?

The dating of the shroud, IIRC, is always under attack from CT's and believers because of the smoke damage and such from the fire's it has survived. But I thought critical analysis showed the body was more or less anatomically correct for a person and revealed likely wounds of a crucifixtion or a crucifixtion reproduction ... but the head was not the same anatomy for the body and was most likely a different head all together :). Davinci was suspect because of his interest in anatomy, his willingness to spite the Church, and the idea he was producing a hoax purposefully while playing with ideas on photography and image projecting and such. But it's been years since I had an interest, so I could be misrepresenting the most commonly accepted theories.
 
steve s said:
The comments are pretty depressing. A few rational people point out that the shroud dates to the 14th century. But this comment by Rene is pretty typical of the rest.

DOES IT REALLY MATTER IF ITS REAL OR NOT. THIS GIVES PEOPLE SOMETHING TO BELIVE IN. DONT LET SCIENCE RUIN THAT FOR US BELIEVER'S
Click to expand...

Steve S
Click to expand...
Why does God seem to have such fondness for people who don't know how to spell, punctuate or use proper grammar and the caps lock/shift keys?
 
trentwray said:
That's just it also. It would still require "faith" to claim it was Jesus. Do we know what Jesus' DNA would look like? Was he the only person crucified at the time?

The idea was that the image was not reproducable or explainable by methods available at the time, but that has since been shown false IIRC ... again the camera obscura was one hypothesis I remember from years ago. But if it was "miraculous", it's easy to put the pieces together and see how 1+1=5. But it would still require "faith". How would you ever be able to prove 100% that it was Jesus who was under that shroud and not Jeezer Rosenabum Maricelli, the Christ to the Odessians?

The dating of the shroud, IIRC, is always under attack from CT's and believers because of the smoke damage and such from the fire's it has survived. But I thought critical analysis showed the body was more or less anatomically correct for a person and revealed likely wounds of a crucifixtion or a crucifixtion reproduction ... but the head was not the same anatomy for the body and was most likely a different head all together :). Davinci was suspect because of his interest in anatomy, his willingness to spite the Church, and the idea he was producing a hoax purposefully while playing with ideas on photography and image projecting and such. But it's been years since I had an interest, so I could be misrepresenting the most commonly accepted theories.
Click to expand...

I remember most of this, too, from articles, critical shows, and so forth. But I am pretty sure that when a 3-D image was rendered for a human body, it was concluded that it would be impossible for a human to be in a position like that because the skeletal system didn't line up correctly. Or something like that. I wish I could remember where I read or saw that. But it was pretty convincing that it was a medieval hoax. A good one, I grant, but a hoax. Or just someone's experiment in art that fell into the hands of someone who thought it was real...and then the drama began. :rolleyes:
 
I hadn't actually thought of WATCHING it. Reading the article was painful enough. HC has been on my s-list for a while, already. If I see something called the HISTORY Channel, I expect history. If I wanted fantasy, I'd go rewatch Mel Gibson's retelling of Wallace, (or that horrid thing Roland Emmerich made - The Patriot). The films might be reprehensibly inaccurate, but they're movies and if you know they're fictionalized, you can like or dislike them on their entertainment value. But HISTORY channels should make at least an attempt at accuracy.
 
Foolmewunz said:
I hadn't actually thought of WATCHING it. Reading the article was painful enough. HC has been on my s-list for a while, already. If I see something called the HISTORY Channel, I expect history. If I wanted fantasy, I'd go rewatch Mel Gibson's retelling of Wallace, (or that horrid thing Roland Emmerich made - The Patriot). The films might be reprehensibly inaccurate, but they're movies and if you know they're fictionalized, you can like or dislike them on their entertainment value. But HISTORY channels should make at least an attempt at accuracy.
Click to expand...
Hey .... *pssst* ..... *lowers my voice* ...... if you want the real deal about our true history, check out Battlefield Earth ...... *walks away whistling*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom