28 of 31 people found the following review helpful
Good, except for the Shroud theory,
By A Customer
This review is from: The Second Messiah: Templars,The Turin Shroud and the Great Secret of Freemasonry (Paperback)
This is a great read, in the same vein as the Hiram Key. In both books are quite convincing, although I detected a few places where they overstated the evidence.
But the chapter on the Turin Shroud is absolute nonsense. First, they present no evidence to connect the shroud to the last templar leader. They write a whole account of his treatment and how the shroud was formed without any evidence at all. Their theory of formation is silly: as a physical chemist I know that substances from a body could not diffuse vertically upwards to form an image: they would just generally discolour the cloth. Furthermore, they baldly state that the back image is much less detailed than the front, in fact little more than splodges, to fit their theory. But if you look at a photo of the shroud, you see that the back image is, if anything, MORE clear. Picknet and Price have a VERY much better theory in "The Turin Shroud...". Their theory is scientifically valid, and also explains the historical evidence better.
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-4 of 4 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 15 Nov 2010 12:56:04 GMT
N Smith says:
This review is nonsense. It would be good to read the book before posting stuff like this. They do give details of the connections between the Templars and the Shroud, which is already fully documented in historical records. The reviewer may be a physical chemist but they obviously missed out on some important learning described in the book. The first studies into the Volkringer Effect were carried out shockingly enough by Professor Volkringer, whose cloth herbals produced in the 1940s are only now beginning to develop the imprints made in those years.
In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jul 2013 14:18:57 BDT
Mr. S. Brown says:
I am very puzzled how and where the author of this book got his research from. As he states Jacques de Molay is the same person who is on the Turin Shroud.
My research from Wikipedia, tells me de Molay and de Charney were slowly burned to death, refusing all offers of pardon for retraction, and bearing their torment with a composure which won for them the reputation of martyrs among the people, who reverently collected their ashes as relics."
So how can it possibly be Jacques de Molay on the Shroud of Turin????
In reply to an earlier post on 7 Oct 2013 17:14:20 BDT
As N. Smith said to the first reviewer, you obviously didn't read the book or if you did, you would know they were burned years after the shroud was said to be 'created'. Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source to be quoting from anyway, it makes your comment HIGHLY suspect! I know the author personally so am aware of what is fact and what is hypothesis on his part.
In reply to an earlier post on 30 Mar 2015 21:26:27 BDT
N Smith says:
Read the book. It says that they were burned to death 7 years after been tortured. Crucifixion was always a form of torture not execution.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›