Sign this to add documentaries onto Netflix's streaming feature.
- by: Aaron Chiu
- recipient: Netflix
The 2 documentaries are on the shroud of Turin. In the petition letter, I prove the credentials of the people speaking in the documentaries. I discuss the authenticity of the shroud as the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth. I undermine the famous carbon dating of the shroud. You might learn something. Please spread this petition to your friends and family members.
The petition is about adding 2 documentaries onto Netflix's streaming feature. The documentaries are on the shroud of Turin. The first documentary is called "Jesus & and the Shroud of Turin". The second one is called "the Fabric of Time". The shroud of Turin is evidence of something that corresponds to the Gospel accounts of Jesus (the suffering). The documentary is EDUCATIONAL.The average Joe knows nothing about the shroud of Turin. Regarding the average Joe to have heard about Netflix is correct. I'm not sure if I'm correct about that statement though. Netflix is something that everybody wants (it's something that the average Joe would be interested in). Most people are interested in movies and shows (and people need a place where they can rent and stream movies and shows).
It's not just a cloth, it's something that corresponds with the Gospel accounts of Jesus. The shroud of Turin is a famous relic and everyone should learn more about it's historical and scientific significance. The shroud of Turin is the most popular Christian relic of all history. It's also one of the most popular relics in general (of all history). The documentary revolves around history and science (facts) not just religion. Don't think the documentary is just on religion, it's a relic and it has to add scientific and historical analysis. It's not just a linen cloth, it's backed up by forensic science and history. It can't just be a linen cloth if it's one of the world's most popular relics.
The average Joe finalizes their opinion of the shroud on the results of the carbon dating, so that is why you should support putting this scientific documentary on Netflix. It brings new light on the carbon dating results.
It's just adding a documentary to Netflix.You really have to grasp the significance of the burial cloth of Jesus. You don't have to recommend the documentary through Netflix you can just rely on the petition and wait for it to expand to thousands of supporters. Please be patient.You'll be recommending a documentary as 1 person, whereas the petition will be recommending the documentary as thousands of people. Think of 1 person as being separate of thousands of people. Thousands of people is something that's just more meaningful (and effective) than 1 person. It's just adding a documentary to Netflix. You're wasting your time by recommending it, the whole petition will involve many people. By recommending it through Netflix, you're doing something the petition could do (effectively) through many people.The petition is recommending it (not by one person, but by many people). If you're effected by this petition, know that it would effect other people. Why would this petition effect other people? Because all it was, was just putting a show onto Netflix and people would understand that so they would sign the petition.
I got the following information from a Discovery Channel documentary called "Unwrapping the Shroud". The knowledge in that documentary is validated by photographers, people who work with NASA technology, STURP members, Forensic scientists, authors, and leading chemists. Here is the documentary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyiZtagxX8
Here is the information from the documentary.
Su Benford noticed something strange about the area where the carbon-dating samples had been taken. The herringbone weave that is so consistent throughout the main body of the shroud seemed misaligned, off-axis (around the area where the carbon dating samples had been taken). The theory is that there is a mixture of 16th century cloth and 1st century cloth (and the data that they are finding on that cloth matches that theory). Benford and Marino argue that carbon dating is wrong because the section where the samples were taken had been contaminated with fibers from a later date.
According to this theory, cotton from the 16th century was invisibly woven into the linen fibers of the shroud. A fixer was applied to the patched area, and the repair was expertly dyed so that it would be invisible to the naked eye. The only thing in the shroud that was dyed or stained was this radiocarbon area. It is a craft they contend was called French reweaving. When you do this type of French reweaving, you're not just stitching two pieces of material together, and that would give you all of one and all of the other. It's more like this, the ends are unraveled in the main cloth, and the ends are unraveled in the new patch. They are spliced together, and the threads are connected and interwoven, so you see literally an interweaving, such that you have old and new on both sides of the equation.
Su Benford and Marino took photographs that were available of the samples taken for the carbon dating. And they had submitted these to several textile experts who didn't know they were looking at a photograph from the shroud. And each of these textile experts, independent of each other, said, "You know. this looks rewoven." The samples taken for radiocarbon dating were cut from one corner of the shroud, adjacent to a seam. It was effectively an area that was damaged, by someone cutting a piece out of it, possibly to sell as relic, so it needed to be repaired.
A scientist (who happened to be an Atheist) confirmed all these findings. Ray Rogers figured out that there was 16 century cotton interwoven in the exact section where they did the carbon dating. When Ray Rogers looked at threads from the corner where the carbon-dating samples had been cut, he found dyes, gums, resins (all signs that the carbon dating section had been repaired hundreds of years ago). We've got photomicrographs that demonstrate this very clearly. The cotton fibers from the radiocarbon sample are fairly heavily coated with the gum dye mordant.
I got this new-found information from a Discovery Channel documentary.
You might be saying that the shroud of Turin did not wrap the body of Christ due to the carbon dating. If you do your research then you would know that the carbon dating was done on something that wasn't apart of the original linen cloth. Ray Rogers is an American chemist who was considered to be a leading expert in thermal analysis. He writes a peer-reviewed scientific paper that undermines the carbon dating of the shroud. He talks about the carbon dating as being done on something that wasn't apart of the original linen cloth. Here is a link to this peer-reviewed scientific paper. http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF
The average Joe finalizes their opinion of the shroud on the results of the carbon dating, so that is why you should support putting this scientific documentary on Netflix. It brings new light on the carbon dating results.
Did you know that Wikipedia says this about Roman Crucifixion? Constantine the Great, the first Christian emperor, abolished crucifixion in the Roman Empire in 337 out of veneration for Jesus Christ, its most famous victim. The carbon dating results placed the shroud origins in the medieval ages (1260–1390 AD). Since crucifixion was abolished before the time set by the carbon dating, then it must mean that the shroud of Turin is the work of an artist (that it was painted). Most experts have concluded that the shroud doesn't contain any trace of paint. That idea has been finalized.
The crucifixion marks on the shroud indicate it being done via Roman crucifixion. A forensic medical examiner and a shroud of Turin expert expresses that statement. The shroud of Turin showcases someone being crucified through the heel and the wrists just like how Roman crucifixion was like. Here is evidence that people were crucified through the heels in Roman times. "In 1968, archaeologists discovered at Giv'at ha-Mivtar in northeast Jerusalem the remains of one Jehohanan, who had been crucified in the 1st century. The remains included a heel bone with a nail driven through it from the side". Here is the link that shows that information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion
The shape and size of the Roman flagrum perfectly matches the scourge marks on the shroud. The Roman flagrum studied in comparison of the shroud had origins in the time of Jesus. The Gospel records Jesus as being scourged by a Roman flagrum. Likewise the wound on the side of the shroud matches the size and shape of the Roman lance. The Gospel records Jesus as being speared by a Roman lance as to authenticate his death.
There are more scientific and historical reasons as to why the shroud displays someone being crucified Roman style. There's a convention that relates Jesus as being crucified through the palms and through the front of the feet. If the shroud is a medieval forgery then the medieval forger would have replicated an image on the shroud that would display someone being crucified through the palms and the feet.
Another historical reason as to why the carbon dating is invalid is due to the face cloth that accompanied the shroud. Unlike the shroud, the face cloth is verified in it's time of history. Experts know for a fact that the face cloth has been in Spain since the 7th century, this in itself, undermines the shroud's carbon dating by at least 600 years.
The face cloth and the burial shroud both cover the same face and it's origins go back to a time that doesn't correspond to the carbon dating results.
The face cloth showcases someone with the crown of thorns and it matches the image on the shroud. The blood type on the face cloth has the same exact blood type found on the burial shroud. Wikipedia reports this information. "In 1999, Mark Guscin investigated the relationship between the shroud and the Sudarium of Oviedo, believed to be the cloth that covered the head of Jesus in the Gospel of John[20:6–7] and thereafter retrieved when Jesus' tomb was found to be empty. The Sudarium is reported to have type AB blood stains. Guscin concluded that the two cloths covered the same head at two distinct, but close moments of time. Avinoam Danin (see below) concurred with this analysis, adding that the pollen grains in the Sudarium match those of the shroud."[113]
That information is in this link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
Here's a verse from "the Gospel of John":
He also noticed the linen wrappings lying there, 7while the cloth that had covered Jesus’ head was folded up and lying apart from the other wrappings.
There are some historical and scientific reasons as to why the shroud of Turin was not a painting.
With the technology of NASA (known as the VP8) they figured out that the shroud of Turin covered a 3-D dimensional body. Scientists determined that the shroud of Turin contains real human blood. Another reason why the shroud of Turin was not painted was due to all the scientific analyses that was done by STURP. STURP is also known as the "Shroud of Turin Research Project". It comprised of various scientists from different backgrounds.
People who actually read the Gospel know that there's a linen cloth that wrapped the body of Christ. In order to be objective you have to take both sides of the subject. The Gospel is a historical recording of Jesus of Nazareth. And the shroud of Turin proves that Jesus existed.
I'm about to refer to documentaries as being worthy. I also speak on Atheist mentality on Christian materal, in general.
A documentary is a good source of knowledge. Documentaries can be quoted.
In order to be objective you have to consider both sides. You can't just abide by one side. Is it right for me to say "that's Atheist propaganda"?
Just saying that it's all Christian propaganda is flimsy. How is this objective? How is this considering both sides? You have to take both sides in order to be considered objective. Atheists (and sometimes Agnostics) try to assess the truth about life but instead clamor over to one side of knowledge.
Wouldn't you prefer not having yourself disregard every single proof of Christianity? You just disregarded the credibility
(of the documentaries) over your own assumption that it was Christian propaganda. You didn't actually disregard what you were told, you instead, disregarded everything over a stereotype about spiritual people. Now how is that objective...saying every single thing was Christian propaganda? That's absurd!
Aren't you trying to be more objective by saying everything is Christian propaganda? How is it objective if you disregard everything over a stereotype? It's an implausible claim to consider every single thing to be Christian propaganda.
You're telling yourself that since you didn't see, you refuse to agree with it. But you're getting first hand knowledge (as well as people with first hand experience) through the documentaries that I show you. What do you think about credible sources like BBC finding similar type evidence (as the other documentaries) over the burial cloth of Jesus?You'll eventually figure out how similar the evidence is for the different documentaries. They also have different directors.
The documentaries that I show you are filled with credible people. They, at least, have better knowledge than the people who write Wikipedia. Anyone speaking in those documentaries can write Wikipedia.
It's clearly entailed that the documentaries provide people who are more knowledgeable than those who write Wikipedia. Don't you digest what Wikipedia says? If you do then what about digesting better information such as the one shown in the documentary. The documentaries usually give this notion "this is what I say".
Wikipedia usually gives this notion "this is what they say".
Wikipedia usually doesn't contain people who have first hand experience with the subject matter.
The documentaries contains people who have first hand knowledge (as well as first hand experience) of the subject matter. It's also filled with leading scientists. The people speaking in the documentaries have a reputation to uphold. The director of the documentaries probably didn't know as much as the people speaking in them. Most of the people speaking in the documentaries began as skeptics until they understood more and more of the evidence shown by the burial cloth itself.
There's a forensic scientist in one of the documentaries. This also means there's forensic evidence of the existence of Jesus. There's also mention about them using equipment from NASA. This is in the documentary. Wikipedia says that virtually ALL scholars of history agree with the historical existence of Jesus. It actually says that. The people speaking in the documentary know more than you do. They probably know more about the opposing evidence than you would. I'm referring to the subject matter of the shroud of Turin. Documentaries are generally considered to be a better source than Wikipedia. Remember anyone can write Wikipedia (anyone) but not everyone can speak in a documentary. It has to come from a credible source. Documentaries are one step higher than what you see on Wikipedia. A lot of them have scientific degrees.
The documentaries have historical and scientific proof, they do not even begin to prove the Gospel accounts as having happened. It simply refers back to the Gospel accounts as validating the burial shroud as the one that Jesus was buried with.
I'm going back to information on the shroud of Turin.
This transpired in the historic times of Jesus. Sometimes for the dead they would put coins on their eyeballs.
Francis Filas, a scientist, photographer, and reverend, worked with a group of researchers, who attempted to figure out what the projections were over the eyes. They took a good photograph of the head of the shroud. A good photograph of the head shows something that bears a striking resemblance to coins. An enlargement of the photo shows the eyeballs with letters that say UCAI as well as something that looked like a shepherds crook. This is typical of the coin that resided in the times of Pilate. Here is evidence that suggests that Francis Filas did such a thing. http://www.nytimes.com/1985/02/17/us/francis-l-filas.html
It says in the link In 1981, Father Filas investigated the imprint of a coin on the shroud, traditionally venerated as the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. He said the imprint matched a coin that numismatists say was produced in Palestine between A.D. 29 and A.D. 32, in the reign of Pontius Pilate, governor of Palestine.
That is another finding from a scientist which proves the carbon dating to be inaccurate. Here is another finding which relates the shroud to the one mentioned in the Gospel. When the image on the shroud was processed as a 3 dimensional image as a photograph they found some letters around the white line on the shroud. The letters are evident in some photographs. Dr. Petrus Soons thought he saw letters around the white lines and he talked with a Rabbi and scholar. The Rabbi and scholar translated the words to mean ABA, which means Father. The white lines on the shroud say ABA. The Gospel always references Jesus as the Son of God the Father.
I'm recommending the documentaries "Jesus & and the Shroud of Turin" and "the Fabric of Time" (for the streaming feature of Netflix). "Jesus & and the Shroud of Turin" contains knowledge from doctors, professors, photographers, botanists, Jewish scholars, physicists, and more. I can prove these people have those credentials. First, I'll go with "Jesus & the Shroud of Turin". Dr. Tod Zalut is in the documentary and he is called out as a "emergency care physician". Here is a link that can prove that. http://www.terem.com/en/about/team/medical Angelo Montante is in the documentary and he called out as a professor of Glendale college . Here is a link that can prove that he is a professor of "Glendale college". https://www.google.com/#q=angelo+montante+professor
Barrie Schwortz is in the documentary and he is called out as a photographer of the shroud. Here is a link that can prove that.
Dr. Alan Whanger is in the documentary and he is from "Duke University". Here is a link that can prove that. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=active&q=Alan+Whanger+Duke+University
Dr. Avinoam Danin is in the documentary and is called a botanist from Hebrew University. Here is a link that can prove that. https://www.google.com/#q=avinoam+danin+hebrew+university
Rabbi Micah Halpern is in the documentary and he is called a Jewish scholar. Here is a link that can prove that. https://www.google.com/#q=rabbi+micah+halpern&spell=1
Kevin Moran is in the documentary and he is called a Optical Specialist.
Here is a link that can prove that.
Second is proving the credentials of the people speaking in "the Fabric of Time".
"The Fabric of Time" is a documentary that contains people with these accreditation's.
It contains knowledge from a particle physicist, people with PhD's, lawyers, CEO's, holographic researchers, historians, and forensic pathologists.
Dame Isabel Piczek is a particle physicist as well as a monumental artist. She is in the documentary. Here is a link that can prove her accreditation's. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=active&q=dame+isabel+piczek
Fred Alan Wolf has a PhD and is author of the book called "Taking the Quantum Leap". He is in the documentary. Here is a link that can prove his accreditation's. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=active&q=Fred+Alan+Wolf+phd
Here is the book on amazon.com
His book won U.S. National Book Award in Science in 1982. Here is a link that can prove that.
Professor Bruno Barberis has a Phd and is the director of the international center of Sindonology. He is in the documentary. Here is the link to prove that.
Michael Minor is a lawyer who wrote a book on the authenticity of the shroud. He is in the documentary. Here is a link that proves that the book is real. http://books.google.com/books/about/A_Lawyer_Argues_for_the_Authenticity_of.html?id=W5wGMQAACAAJ
Thomas D' Muhala is the president of AMSTAR. He is also the former president of STURP. He is in the documentary. Here is a link that proves his credibility.
Not only does that Wikipedia article indicate that he was the president of STURP, it also indicates that he is a nuclear physicist (so he is a credible source).
Dr. Petrus Soons is a shroud holographic researcher. He is in the documentary. Here is an article that he wrote.
Mark Gusin is a historian and is author of the book called "The Oviedo Cloth". He is in the documentary. Here is a link to his book. http://www.amazon.com/Oviedo-Cloth-Mark-Guscin/dp/0718829859/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1416294987&sr=1-1&keywords=the+oviedo+cloth
Robert Buckland is a forensic pathologist and uses forensic evidence to authenticate the shroud as the burial cloth of Jesus. He is in the documentary called the "Fabric of Time". Here is evidence that he is a forensic pathologist. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=active&q=Robert+Bucklin+forensic
Gary R Habermas is a American historian. He is in the documentary called "the Fabric of Time".
Here is a link that proves his credibility as a historian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Habermas
All this proof can't be wrong.
Here is a link where you can watch the documentary called "the Fabric of Time".
If that link doesn't work, then go to this link http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=9JJF11NU
That's part 1 of "the Fabric of Time". Here's part 2: http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=7DDKYGNX
Here is the documentary called "Jesus & and the Shroud of Turin".
In order to be objective you have to take both sides of the subject. The Gospel is a historical recording of Jesus of Nazareth. And the shroud of Turin proves that Jesus existed.
All of the evidence, with the exception of the largely discredited Carbon-14 test, give the Shroud of Turin a far greater claim to authenticity than virtually any other ancient artifact.
You have JavaScript disabled. Without it, our site might not function properly.
By signing, you accept Care2's Terms of Service.
You can unsub at any time here.
Having problems signing this? Let us know.