The authors offer proof that the Shroud of Turin, reputed to be the image of Jesus Christ, is actually the image of Leonardo da Vinci--and the first photograph ever created--and explain how and why it came to be. 100,000 first printing. $75,000 ad/promo. Tour.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Book Description
Editorial Reviews
From the Publisher
A carefully pieced-together solution to Christianity's most seductive enigma, the origin of the Turin Shroud.
--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
More About the Authors
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
16 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Entertaining read, interesting hypothesis,
This review is from: Turin Shroud: In Whose Image? the Truth Behind the Centuries-Long Conspiracy of Silence (Paperback)
This book purports to put forth what the authors consider is a completely new twist on the Turin Shroud. Unfortunately this is yet another book where we are dealing with a relatively "anonymous informant." Here the anonymous informant is a man named "Giovanni." It should be granted that this reliance on an anonymous source does nothing, a priori, to disprove the hypothesis put forth in the book but it certainly does give one pause.So what does this "informant" have to do with the Turin Shroud? Well, this man apparently provides the authors with the information that Leonardo was heavily involved in the occult, was the "Grand Master" of a secret society and was responsible for the Turin Shroud. Not only was Leonardo responsible for creating the Shroud, the mysterious "Giovanni" said that Leonardo used a type of photographic technique - one that had not come to light since Leonardo employed it. The key to science is repeatability of results. The authors go into a little detail about their own three-dimensional work with the Shroud images via the work of a man named Andy Haveland-Robinson, a consultant in computer graphics operations. This is important because they claim that their findings show a lack of three-dimensional information, in direct contrast to the VP-8 studies done earlier. (It can be said, however, that the original work with the VP-8 is highly suspect.) Nevertheless, we really have nothing to go on except their chapter eight which explains the basics behind their techniques. One key element is: would Leonardo have had the necessary materials available to him for this venture? We have to consider that by history as we know it, any photographic technique at all was more than three hundred years in the future. The authors say that the materials he would have needed would have been available. However, the authors, in attempting to recreate the work of Leonardo that they believe he did, did not use only materials that existed at his time. (In other words, they did use materials that only came into use after Leonardo's time.) As they freely admit, they had to make some concessions. This, no matter how small the concession, calls into question their hypothesis. They do say that it is possible that history is wrong as to when some of those materials came into use and it must be admitted that it is not impossible that Leonardo could have made use of them - but, in any event, that does not make for an air-tight hypothesis. Certainly not as air-tight as the authors routinely claim through the course of the book. Beyond that, why was the process never revealed by Leonardo, revealed by someone else, or even just discovered by someone else? We know that Leonardo was very secretive in general and he was accused of sorcery at one point in his life. But this does not necessarily show why someone else might not have developed it. Or why the technique has not appeared in any of Leonardo's notebooks that have been found (and, granted, many have been lost). Again: not disproofs of the hypothesis - just more wiggle-room for questioning. The authors claim that Leonardo may have viewed photography as part of his "magical" and "hermetical" practices. The authors state that "it is likely that Leonardo himself would have regarded basic photography as something magical." I am not so sure of that. Even if such studies were considered magical in some fashion, that does not mean Leonardo would have looked at them that way. It is known that Leonardo had good ideas about how the human eye works, mainly from dissecting the eyes, that were certainly not magical. In fact, he seems to have equated light with a wave that had a definite speed. We also know he was fascinated with the investigation of lenses and mirrors, as well as light in general. It later came to light that Leonardo had invented one of the first photometers (for measuring the brightness of an object) as well as drawing up the design for a camera obscura, which he publicly showed during his lifetime. (The authors do mention most of this and yet they still seem to think that Leonardo would have only placed photographic-like processes in the realm of magic.) This is not to say, however, that Leonardo was not accussed of magic - or, actually, of sorcery. The Church also took a fairly dim view of these proceedings and thus it would have been wise to keep some of this research under wraps. The authors believe that the Shroud is a composite image. As they say: "We believe that it is composed of three images - the face, the body from the neck down at the front, and all of the head and back." Furthermore, they believe that the face image is, in fact, that of Leonardo da Vinci. This is partly based on evidence that the authors feel they adduced regarding that the face on the image is a "bad fit" in the sense that it apepars to be too small in relation to the body. There is also the idea that in all images of the Shroud, there is a very distinctive cut off between the upper torso and the head. In other words, the neck is completely missing. However there are vastly in the minority on this part of their hypothesis. Does that make it wrong? Of course not, but the authors really do not go into other people's hypotheses all that much as to why the image is not composite. The book was meant to persuade. After reading it, I cannot say that I was completely persuaded. However, I can say that I was intrigued. The authors presented their case well and I would certainly like to do further investigation into this matter. I think the authors make a few assumptions along the way but I found nothing that I found was just totally unrealistic in terms of their assumptions, just perhaps a little hopeful. They are on much less stable ground with their alleged informant and the Priory of Sion - particularly because the Priory of Sion has all but been completely discredited in scholarly circles, recognized for the hoax it was. Since this is not a fundamental part of their book (when you get into their hypothesis), it does not detract overly much from the book. Overall: it is a good book that is well written and paced and gives some good information about the history of the Shroud (albeit, some selective history) and some of the research done with it. I would recommend you read it - but also read other books about this subject so as to get a more balanced viewpoint.
11 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Very impressive, up to a point,
This review is from: Turin Shroud: In Whose Image? the Truth Behind the Centuries-Long Conspiracy of Silence (Paperback)
The authors give a very informative and entertaining survey of the known history of the Turin Shroud, as well as of the status of research, and of the various theories. They also give a very believable account of their confrontations with the "Shroudies" who want to prove the authenticity of the shroud at all costs. Moreover, they correctly emphasize that, even if the carbon dating tests have shown that the shroud can't have been made anywhere near the time of Jesus, the question remains as to how it was made. After reading this book - and checking the work by other researchers cited by them - there is no doubt in my mind that the Turin Shroud was made by a early photographic process. That is the only method that has allowed modern reproductions of the shroud to be made (not only by the authors of the book, whose work - as they admit - in this regard is amateurish, but by a photography specialist in South Africa). Those who insist on the Jacques de Molay theory overlook the fact that the authors of "The Second Messiah" also tried to reproduce the shroud - and failed miserably. Where the book starts to need more than a few pinches of salt is when they insist that Leonardo da Vinci was the faker of the shroud. They do give a lot of intriguing information about Leonardo, as well as circumstancial evidence, but I did raise my eyebrows when they introduced the mysterious "Giovanni" character who fist pointed the right way. Moreover, other books by the same authors indicate that they tend to move in the shadowy world of conspiracy theories and secret societies - which makes one suspicious. The same goes for the claim that the face on the Shroud is Leonardo's own, and that the intentionally had the face slightly separated from the body. I personally find it more likely that "head cut from the body" effect was due to a faulty composition, when the faker re-exposed the cloth to capture the face, which I believe to have been photographed separately - and rather than Leonardo, that possibly some today-forgotten artist was the faker. The Vatican should thank the authors, since, as they point out, should the Shroud turn out to be not only the oldest photograph in existence, but also by Leonardo, and his self-portrait, that would meant that it is the most priceless artifact on the planet.
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
This book deserves much more attention than it has gotten,
By
This review is from: Turin Shroud: In Whose Image? the Truth Behind the Centuries-Long Conspiracy of Silence (Hardcover)
I read this book several years ago, having had no prior interest in the shroud, and found the presentation of how the image was made to be pretty reasonable and well-demonstrated. I am moved now to write this review because I recently read Second Messiah, which criticizes this book and which postulates that the image is that of a real human laid on the shroud, which I think cannot be true because, among other reasons, the image of the long hair of the back of the head would not run straight down the figure's back as it actually appears on the shroud; instead, as the body was laid down, the hair would first dangle to the cloth and then, as the head lowered to the cloth, the hair would crumple underneath the head, as anyone with long hair knows happens if you lie down after a shower. This book Turin Shroud describes a physical process involving a camera obscura and a primitive emulsion on the cloth, producing a photographic image. I can't speak to the Leonardo theory or the Priory of Sion material they include, since I don't follow nor much care about such conjectures. But that material even if wrong doesn't impeach the physical theory of image production. As to motivation, it seems reasonable that someone would try to create such a religious object as Christ's shroud, in order to attract pilgrims and donations, and may have stumbled on the process to create this image. There is another, long review on this site that goes into more detail -- I've read this review and I generally agree with its approach.
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Suggested Tags from Similar Products(What's this?)Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product).
|
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
