Saturday, 30 March 2013

The Fake Turin Shroud

How to tell the 'Shroud of Turin' is a hoax.

For those who have not heard of the Turin Shroud:

The Shroud of Turin or Turin Shroud (Italian: Sindone di Torino, Sacra Sindone) is a linen cloth bearing the image of a man who appears to have suffered physical trauma in a manner consistent with crucifixion. It is kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, northern Italy. The image on the shroud is commonly associated with Jesus, his crucifixion and burial. It is much clearer in black-and-white negative than in its natural sepia color. The negative image was first observed in 1898, on the reverse photographic plate of amateur photographer Secondo Pia, who was allowed to photograph it while it was being exhibited in the Turin Cathedral.

The historical records for the Shroud of Turin can be separated into two time periods: before 1390 and from 1390 to the present. The period until 1390 is subject to debate and controversy among historians. Prior to the 14th century there are some allegedly congruent but controversial references such as the Pray Codex. It is often mentioned that the first certain historical record dates from 1353 or 1357. However the presence of the Turin Shroud in Lirey, France, is only undoubtedly attested in 1390 when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum where he charged that the Shroud was a forgery. The history from the 15th century to the present is well documented. In 1453 Margaret de Charny deeded the Shroud to the House of Savoy. As of the 17th century the shroud has been displayed (e.g. in the chapel built for that purpose by Guarino Guarini) and in the 19th century it was first photographed during a public exhibition.

There are little definite historical records concerning the shroud prior to the 14th century. Although there are numerous reports of Jesus' burial shroud, or an image of his head, of unknown origin, being venerated in various locations before the 14th century, there is little but reliable historical evidence that these refer to the shroud currently at Turin Cathedral. A burial cloth, which some historians maintain was the Shroud, was owned by the Byzantine emperors but disappeared during the Sack of Constantinople in 1204...

The history of the shroud from the 15th century is well recorded. In 1532, the shroud suffered damage from a fire in the chapel where it was stored. A drop of molten silver from the reliquary produced a symmetrically placed mark through the layers of the folded cloth. Poor Clare Nuns attempted to repair this damage with patches. In 1578 the House of Savoy took the shroud to Turin and it has remained at Turin Cathedral ever since.

Repairs were made to the shroud in 1694 by Sebastian Valfrè to improve the repairs of the Poor Clare nuns. Further repairs were made in 1868 by Clotilde of Savoy. The shroud remained the property of the House of Savoy until 1983, when it was given to the Holy See, the rule of the House of Savoy having ended in 1946.

A fire, possibly caused by arson, threatened the shroud on 11 April 1997. In 2002, the Holy See had the shroud restored. The cloth backing and thirty patches were removed, making it possible to photograph and scan the reverse side of the cloth, which had been hidden from view. A ghostly part-image of the body was found on the back of the shroud in 2004. The most recent public exhibition of the Shroud was in 2010.

Leaving aside for the moment any concerns that the 'shroud' might not be that from a 1st century CE Palestinian Jew, there is nothing to prove that that Palestinian Jew in question was the biblical Jesus of course, but we don't need that defence. The 'shroud' is not from the 1st century CE and the image on it was not produced supernaturally by a body wrapped in it.

The simplest way to tell the Turin Shroud is not the image of a body around which is was wrapped is to look at it. However the image is believed to have been transferred to the surface of the linen it could not have happened when it was wrapped around a three-dimensional figure, either by some sort of radiation analogous to light striking a photographic plate, or by direct contact with it, analogous to some sort of contact printing process like lithography or etching. It is a two-dimensional representation of a figure such as is obtained by photography, or as painted by an artist who represents depth with tonal and perspective tricks designed to make the image look three-dimensional.

A cloth wrapped round a three-dimensional object such as a cadaver does not stay flat like a painter's canvas or a photographic plate but folds and puckers to conform to prominences like the nose, hand, shown in the image as resting across the lower abdomen (to modestly hide the genitalia) and feet. To obtain the image seen on the linen the body it was wrapped round would need to be flat.

Don't take my word for this. Try it with any irregular three-dimensional object yourself. Coat it in paint then place it carefully on a white cloth. Fold the cloth around it and tuck the edges under it, as though you are wrapping a body in a shroud. Now unwrap it and see how the paint on the cloth compares to the object you coated. No matter how many times you repeat this and no matter how carefully you do it you will not get a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional object. You have exactly the same problem that map-makers have in trying to represent the globe in two dimensions or mountains on a flat surface without resorting to shading or diagrammatic contour lines.

The effect is similar to the scan of an open book where a three-dimensional object is projected onto a two-dimensional piece of paper. However you try to do it, the image will be distorted. Yet there is no sign of any distortion of what looks like the image of a dead human body.

A number of studies on the anatomical consistency of the image on the shroud and the nature of the wounds on it have been performed, following the initial study by Yves Delage in 1902. While Delage declared the image anatomically flawless, others have presented arguments to support both authenticity and forgery.

In 1950 physician Pierre Barbet wrote a long study called A Doctor at Calvary which was later published as a book. Barbet stated that his experience as a battlefield surgeon during World War I led him to conclude that the image on the shroud was authentic, anatomically correct and consistent with crucifixion.

Ironically, claims by anatomists that the figure is anatomically perfect are usually quoted by apologists in support of claims of the 'shrouds' authenticity. In fact, they are exactly the opposite; it should not be perfect but should be markedly, and in places, grossly distorted if it is genuine.

There is also another glaring error in the attempt to make the image look like it was wrapped around a real, three-dimensional human body. Look at the junction between the front of the head and the back. There is no sign of a join in the cloth here. In fact, it looks as though the intention was to make it look as though the body was laid face upwards on the bottom end of a long cloth, which was then folded over the head and down to the feet so the cloth was wrapped over the top of the skull.

Try this: put your thumb on the point of your chin and touch your hair-line with your second finger. This gives you the length of your face. Now, keeping your finger and thumb held the same spread, put the tip of your second finger on your hair-line and your thumb on the back of your head. Notice that your head is almost exactly the same size from front to back at your face is long.

Now look again at the full 'shroud'. Notice the space between the top of the front of the head and the top of the back of the head. Paradoxically, since the cloth would have been in tight contact with the body at this point, this is where we should expect a near-perfect image, not a distorted one. There should be a roughly rectangular image of the top of the head at least as long as the face and the top of the front and back views should curve up into this, not form a neat arch with some sort of stain separating them with a hint of a fold. It should be a bit like looking into one of those distorting mirrors which produce two heads joined at the top. This would be the true representation of the head, projected onto a cloth wrapped around it and then opened out onto a flat, two-dimensional surface.

It is not there!

To me, this simple error destroys any claim to authenticity which the 'shroud' might have had, even for those who believe the myth of Jesus. Any attempt to explain this away or to dismiss it as unimportant can only show an inability to face up to the evidence. It may have been an attempt to depict a shroud as seen from the inside; it may have been some sort of experimental form of art; it is far more likely to have been the work of a clever (but not clever enough) forger cashing in on the insatiable demand for holy relics, but one thing is certain, the image on the 'Shroud of Turin' was not produced by contact with, or by radiation from, a dead body wrapped in it. It is an attempt to represent a front and rear view of a human body in two dimensions, covered with the requisite traditional marks and traces of 'blood' for added authenticity. One is almost tempted to wonder what happened to the original painting from which this was copied, perish the thought.

But then all of this is academic anyway, since the linen cloth was carbon dated and shown, with a 95% confidence, by three independent teams working in Oxford University, England, University of Arizona, USA and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology to be woven from flax growing between 1290 and 1360, matching exactly the date the cloth makes its first uncontested appearance in a church in France.

The only real objection apologists have managed to mount to this devastating result is to claim that the sample must have been taken from a 13th century 'invisible' repair - a repair which was so good that no one can see where the 'repair' starts and the 'shroud' ends - and that by a fantastic coincidence they happened to hit exactly the wrong tiny fragment when they took the sample for carbon dating - almost as though God didn't want the shroud to be authenticated.

In fact, it's perhaps surprising that no one seems to have come up with the excuse that God caused the true date to be hidden because he doesn't want proof of Jesus. Maybe I just haven't seen it.

Among the more hilarious attempts to prove the shroud's authenticity are:

  • A claim to have detected two Roman coins covering the eyes of the figure with enough detail to show them to be a one-lepton coin minted in 29 CE and a two-lepton coin minted 29-30 CE.
  • A 2009 claim by Barbara Frale, a paleographer in the Vatican Secret Archives (sic), to be able to read the image of a 'death certificate' written in Greek, Latin and Hebrew which, for some unexplained reason was tucked into the shroud, bearing the words "In the year 16 of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius Jesus the Nazarene, taken down in the early evening after having been condemned to death by a Roman judge because he was found guilty by a Hebrew authority, is hereby sent for burial with the obligation of being consigned to his family only after one full year". This would place it at exactly 31 CE.

I particularly like the objection to Frale's methodology - "the writings are too faint to be seen". Quite how that differs significantly from "the words are not there" is probably one of those fallback religious mysterious the Vatican so loves.

submit to reddit


  1. If people are crazy enough to believe in a magic man in the sky, they are hardly going to listen to any arguments against a 'sacred' shroud. They will think up any excuse to continue in their cosy delusion.

    1. I'm A Christian, and I don't believe in a magic man in the sky either. To call God a magic man in the sky only shows you haven't the foggiest idea of what believers believe about God. I don't know any believers who think of God as a man in the sky. God isn't a thing in the universe. God is unrestricted, and therefore can't be contained by finite realities like time, and space which includes skies. Before you mock people for believing in something you clearly have no understanding of. You might consider finding out what believers believe about God. A magic man in the sky is not one of those things.

    2. Love the special pleading you need to use to defend your magic friend, like a parent of a handicapped child. Doesn't it embarrass you to have to claim your magic man is exempted from all the normal tests of reality in order to be able to compete with it?

      You don't seem to realise that you're also telling the world your favourite magic man is therefore undetectable and that you have no way of knowing it really is anything more than an imaginary magic friend.

      Why not have an invisible magic fairy as a friend instead?

  2. Whilst it origin may still be in question, there is absolutely no doubt it's a hoax which in no way stands up to any real scrutiny.

    1. What is your evidence of real scrutiny that it can't stand up to? The real evidence shows that this can not be reproduced accurately now let alone in the 13th century.

    2. Can I suggest you read the article, where you will find your question answered?

  3. Test results have dated the shroud to the time of Christ. Last test was around 30 years ago, new test claims it is radiation that caused the image. What i cannot understand is why this thing cannot be reproduced. It is 2013 and if a reproduction was able to be made at least we would know how the original was made.

    1. They must have just forgotten to publish them. The last published ones dated it to between 1290 and 1360 which is when the flax the linen is made from were growing. I mentioned that in the blog. Perhaps you should have read it.

      Or maybe you're thinking of a different shroud, or a different Christ, even.

  4. Hi,

    I am the same poster above.

    The results of the latest tests have been published numerous places. you must not have used google before you wrote this blog entry and it contains a few technical errors. Which i will not get into but if you did research you would be able to pick them out yourself.

    The latest test dates the shroud to between 300 BC and 400AD.

    My real issue with the shroud is that no one even to this day knows how it was made or can reproduce it. Attempts have been made but they fall way short.

    I find the shroud fascinating even though i am agnostic does not matter i am in it for the science. I love science :)


    1. Strangely, the results of this 'test' don't appear to have been published in a peer-reviewed journal, only in a book co-written by Saverio Gaeta, a journalist. It also appears to be based on a dating technique previously unknown to science conducted by someone who simply dismisses a standard dating method as 'false', despite the fact that three independent teams reached the same conclusion that the flax from which the linen was made grew during the late 13th or early 14th century.

      I found this fact about the man whose book you appear to have accepted uncritically:

      "Mr Gaeta is also a committed Catholic - he worked for L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, and now works for Famiglia Cristiana, a Catholic weekly."

      It was in one of the articles you refer to above so I'm surprised you didn't notice it.

      Perhaps you would like to deal with the substantive points I raised in the blog which show why the image could not have been made by a body wrapped in it, either by direct contact with the body or by radiation of some sort coming from it.

      You might even like to conduct the little experiments I suggested for yourself. If you do, let me know how you get on.

      This article on confirmation bias might also interest you.

    2. I'm sorry you felt unable or unwilling to tell me what 'technical errors' my blog contained, by the way. Unkind people might conclude that there actually weren't any but you couldn't think how else to discredit the article.

      I'm sure you'll want to allay their suspicions...

  5. What difference does if make if the Shroud is a 1600-year-old rag or a 2000 year-old-rag? There is no image of Jesus from the time, let alone DNA!
    Media Consultant
    World News

    “One way to safeguard against it is to assume that when somebody tells you, “Oops! No! Bad call. You didn’t accurately read my soul there”, you should believe them”

  6. The Image wasn't painted, dyed, sketched, or scorched. Scientist don't know how the image got their..... if you know how the image got there, then please explain. As for your theory on the "head" area, you're assuming the image was put on their by human hands / an artist. Okay, again, Scientist don't know how the image got on there....please give your theory here, Rosa.

    As for Jesus being "Real" or "God", try some basic Sunday School teachings.....Genesis 12:2-3 and how Abraham is told that one of his descendants will bring about a World Wide Blessing (see Genesis 22 as well). When Genesis was finally written down in it's current form on papyrus in 550 B.C., the Jews where a small group of slaves in Babylon. So these slaves are predicting that one of their descendants will bring about a World Wide Blessing. Forward ahead 580 years....then, if we read Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts, we see that Jesus and his Apostles are predicting to fulfill Genesis 12:2-3 and Genesis 22. When this was written down (from 40 - 70) the Christians were no-ones that were being persecuted. The Christians were on the run for 300 years....a band of misfits (from a Worldly / Roman point of view) who worshiped in hiding or in caves...yet in the end, they spread their belief around the world and now in every Catholic / Orthodox Church, the following is said, "I bless you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Blessings all over the world in every Nation. Think about that and contemplate.

    Again, I await your explanation as to how the image got on the doesn't know. Before you go around calling the Shroud a "Fake" prove how the image got on their first. Good luck.

  7. Firstly, I'm sorry you felt you needed to remain anonymous but I think readers will understand.

    Secondly, I'm sorry you had no evidence you could use and needed to resort to the infantile devise of quoting from a book of highly dubious provenance. Do you remember who fooled you with the notion that writing something in a book makes it come true or were you very young at the time?

    Thirdly, I'm sorry you don't know how the images was painted in the 12th-century linen cloth but ignorance is not a scientific argument and can't transform something which was made from plants growing in 12th-century France to something made in mid 1st-century Palestine.

    Forthly, had you read the blog you would have seen that I explain very fully why the image could not have been produced by a body wrapped in it.

    Fifthly, even IF you could show that the cloth came from 1st-century Palestine and was made by magic, you are no closer to proving it was wrapped around your mythical god-man.

    Sixthly, we know very well how Christianity was plagiarises and used by the failing Roman Empire thanks. Had they chosen Mithraism or one of the many other cults popular at the time you would now be defending that particular superstition and quoting translations of the books they wrote to promulgate it through.

    As I said, your choice not to reveal your identity is quite understandable. I would be embarrassed to.

  8. I'm not embarrassed. Every objection to your claims has been answered. Let's start here:

    1) I'm not ashamed of my name....rehtus777. That's all all I'm going to reveal.

    2) The Bible is Historical Fact. Live with it. It is living history. I proved to you some very simple prophesy that should make you say, "That's interesting. Either the Jews / Christians were divinely guided or they got very lucky with the 'World Wide Prophecy' quote you gave me from Genesis 12 and 22.'" Also, there are dozens and dozens of Prophesies about Christ in the Old Testament that came true....I haven't even scratched the surface.

    3) Plants from France? You're cracked. The linen was made form flax fibers. It has not been proven to been made in France. Even "IF" it was made in France, it doesn't explain how the Image got on the Shroud. I'm not interested in the TIME of it's creation, but HOW it was formed. Science CAN NOT answer this question. You can present theories and guesses, but MODERN SCIENCE doesn't have a clue. You lose. BTW....the Italians claim they did a test on the Shroud in 2011 and they dated it back to 400 A.D. Hmmmm....have you seen the art work from that time? Doesn't even come close to what the Shroud presents.

    4) John Jackson (PhD) from the Sturp team has already debunked this myth....the wrapping is of the body is consistent with Jewish burial rituals and the Scientific evidence is accurate as to a body being wrapped in the shroud. Your 'Thumb' theory is a joke.

    5) Weak. Ad Hominen is so Sophomoric. Our Religion is about "Faith"...if it could be 100% proved, you'd be a Christian. Life is about a "Test" and how you treat your fellow human being. In the end, you'll be judge on how you scored on that "Test." It's really not that hard to figure out....."Love one another." Duh. Again, the Hebrews predicted a man would come from their "family" / "Lineage" and create a "World Wide Blessing" for all mankind. It happened. Your choice is to either say, "It is real" or "The Hebrews / Christians got lucky."

    6) Plagiarized? What? HAHAHA. Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. If you're referring to Zeitgeist ....again, don't have a very good grasp of History. That has been debunked over and over again. The Bible has been proven factual in a historical context over and over again. It is is real...the predictions have become real....and Christianity is real and has brought about a World Wide Blessing. Get over it.

    Again, forget about the Theology or the Time the Shroud was formed....I want to know how a Negative Image in 3D by an "artist" was formed - by at least the 14th Century. I await your answer. Good luck

    1. Mr Understandably Anonymous.

      I'll let this stand as an example of Christianity.

      Any further abuse and evidence-free preaching will be removed.

    2. rehtus777 here...... I await a very simple answer to a very simple question: "How did the image get on the Shroud of Turin?"

      At heart, I'm a skeptic....if you give me the "magic bullet" to end this controversy, then I'll oblige...... until then, I am mystified by the image.

    3. It was painted on, of course. How else?

    4. LOL...painted yet there are no brush stroke according to evidence....Keep believing that it is made by a Fairy tale Forger who painted the shroud...
      I will rely on Ockham's Law of Parsimony...."The Simplest explanation is usually the Correct one"....This is not forgery or painting because there are no brush strokes...PERIOD...

  9. I understand it has yet to be fully explained how a medieval forger created this image on a linen cloth made from 12th-century French flax. One thing is certain though, as you would have seen in my blog had you read it, it could not have been created by direct contact with a human body wrapped in it, nor by anything radiating from a body wrapped in it. I even suggest a way you can prove that for yourself if you wish.

    I'm afraid the precise details of how the forgery was done are not going to be much help to you since a 12th-century French cloth could not have been wrapped around anyone from 1st-century Palestine and the image could not have been produced by being wrapped around a human body, dead or otherwise.

    But I'll certainly post it here when the forger's methods have been identified if you feel that would help you come to terms with the Fake of Turin not being what you want it to be.

    1. Make sure you know the exact properties of the Image in the shroud...
      1) there are no brush strokes, which means it is not painting
      2) the image did not penetrate the blood stains...
      In fact the blood stains come first before the image....and the image did not penetrate the blood stains...

      In order to reproduce the image, the Forger must first put the blood stains...and then paint an image WITHOUT TOUCHING the blood Stains..
      He must create an image around the blood stains without disturbing the Blood Stains..

      3)e Shroud image occurs only on the top surface fibrils on the crowns of the linen fibres... "... the image ... is extremely thin, around 200 nm = 200 billionths of a meter, or one fifth of a thousandth of a millimeter, which corresponds to the thickness of the primary cell wall of the so-called single linen fiber.

    2. It's a shame you were unable to provide any references for your assertions. In fact, the most recent analysis of the representations of 'blood' show they weren't even accurate and would have needed the arms to be in two different positions simultaneously. In fact, we know the image was painted because it was described as such early in its history and because of the loincloth that was added later and then removed did not penetrate the fibres either because they were specifically prepared with gesso to prevent it.

      I await your explanation for how a cloth made of 12th century flax, woven on a loom invented in 11th century Germany, came to be wrapped around a 1st century Palestinian.

  10. rehtus777 here.

    Your article might hold weight or water if it wasn't for one thing: You keep assuming the image was done with some type of "Artist Medium" known during the 14th Century, but you're wrong. It wasn't painted, scorched, dyed, rubbed in with any type of man-made material The image was put on there is some "Natural" form not touched by man's hands (that is the consensus by the modern Scientists). The image was imprinted into the cloth with some type of radiating heat. Also, the image is only 1/500th of an inch into the does not go through to the back side. The best answer you might be able to come up with for the 14th Century is that someone used some type of mirror with reflection and heat....but unlikely. Where the blood stains are at, there is NO image under the Stain. Also, the Arterial System is perfectly mapped, yet man didn't know the arterial system or map it until the 16th Century. And, there are water stains around the blood stains.....Water and Blood came from the side of the man in the Shroud. I could go on and on with all the scientific data and prove that KNOW WAY anyone from the 14th Century could have figured out to perfectly put the blood stains on the shroud unless they put a real body on the Shroud. First, he would have had to put the blood on the Shroud and then put the image (without any type of Artist medium) on around the blood stains. No way. Also, they didn't even know how crucifixion was done by the Romans in 14th Century least not as scientifically as it was done on the Shroud. The only real argument you could say is that some crazy Artist actually crucified someone and then laid him in the shroud.....waited for the blood to dry and then removed the body. After that, then somehow put this "unexplained" image on the shroud "Perfectly" around the blood.

    I'm an X-Ray tech.... I do Bone Scans, CT, and Plain Films. When I examine the Shroud in the negative, it looks just like a Whole Body Bone the "T". Also, the hands on the Shroud are perfect.....the Metacarpal Bones show up and make the hand "Fingers" look extra long, just like it's suppose to look in a negative of a Whole Body Bone Scan. I can even see individual phalanges between each joint in the fingers. And the teeth show up and you can even see the roots of the teeth. I could go on and on.

    As for your "thumb to hair line" doesn't work because the hair on the back of the head of the Shroud distorts the outline of the Skull. And the Crown of the skull is distorted on the back side.

    As for the Carbon 14 dating....Dr. Rogers (a skeptic of the Shroud and one of the Los Alamos C14 testers) wrote an article 15 years after the C14 test and it was looked over / approved by a Pier Review Board ..... he says the 1988 test was skewed. There were cotton fibers in the C14 sample they used and vermilion (dye) was on some of the fibers. Also, with all the smoke from when it caught on fire in the box, incense, candle fumes from wax, people kissing the shroud, people touching the shroud, and the chemically treated box it was stored in for several centuries, this has most likely brought about a skewed C14 test. Linen fibers absorb things like a sponge. They even found pollution (smoke) from the Fiat automobile plant in the shroud from the pollution in the city of Turin.

    In the end, the Shroud is a GREAT MYSTERY. I don't care when it was created or where....... but I look forward to reading your blog to hear your answer once they prove it did come from some "Radiation" type source.

    One last thing (a bit of advice), you are "over confident" that it is a fake. Every part of your article you keep assuming it's not real. But is is a "Miracle of Science." Whomever made this cloth is a genius....whether in the 1st Century or the 14th.

    1. PS. Sorry for the Typo's. And Rosa, you're a good sport. Thank you for not deleting my give the 1st Amendment a "Good Name." :-)

    2. Had you read my blog you would have seen there is no reference whatsoever to "Artists Medium". The rest of your comment is thus redundant.

    3. Considering your argument that the image was NOT caused by "Radiation", then it only follows to assume that it was from some "Unknown Artist Medium". As you say, "The Artist was clever, but not clever enough." This implies a man with artistic talent used some "MEDIUM" that science can't figure out, correct? Also, to support your argument of the back of the Skull, you want us to use a cloth and lay it over "Paint" to prove your point. Again, you're assuming it was done by some "Artistic Medium" with the quality of paint to prove your point, correct?

      Once again, this looks like a "Whole Body Bone Scan" (minus most of the bones)....we see the fleshy parts of the scan with some bones appearing in the hands (all of the bones in the hand) and a few bones appearing in the teeth, left femur, and right tibia. Also, if the body was more than 4 cm from the cloth, it does not appear on the image. Look around the groin and the arms - the thickness of the arm and the drop off from the abdomen to the groin is image. The knees are slightly bent - and - on the posterior side of the image, the back of the knees go 'black' because of the distance of the body from the cloth. And notice that the areas that are in direct contact are very very white, like the tip of the nose, chest, top of the left hand, and the buttocks. A Nuclear Gamma Camera works in the same way....if the Camera is too far from the image, the closest part of the body will show up brighter than the parts farthest from the Camera. (IOW's, the Gamma Rays weaken with distance...the closer the Gamma Rays, the brighter the object.). Same with the Shroud, the closer the body part to the cloth, the brighter the image.

      As for the lateral image on the Shroud, this is a mystery. One theory (assuming it is the cloth of Christ) is that Nicodemus put the 75 pounds of spices (probably in several jars) next to the body of Jesus and they put the cloth over Christ is haste because the Sun was about to set for the Sabbath. They were going to come back and finish the Jewish burial custom on Sunday, so they did not wrap the body but just covered it with the clay jars on both sides of the body. Many theories abound about why the lateral image is not on the Shroud. John Jackson has a good theory, but this post is getting to long. Thanks for your time.

    4. >that science can't figure out, correct?<

      Can I suggest that, if you have nothing better than the god of the gaps, false dichotomy and straw-man fallacies to fall back on that you call it a day?

      I'm afraid a cloth made from 12th-century French flax could not have been wrapped around a 1st-century Palestinian corpse without time travel, nor could the image have been produced by wrapping the cloth around a human body, as I have clearly shown.

      And even if time travel had been invented in 1st-century Roman times, and even if wrapping a body in a cloth could have produced that image, you are no close to proving it was wrapped around your mythical god-man.

      It's been interesting to see how easily the Catholic Church can fool credulous people desperate for their cognitive dissonance to be relieved by confirmation bias, no matter how spurious and unlikely.

      Thank you for playing.

    5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    6. As I warned it would be, your irrelevent preaching spam has been deleted. Please take a dump in your own blog in future. Even Christians are expected to behave in a civilised manner here no matter how much they feel exempt from normal rules of conduct.

    7. The Shroud is a Faerie trick. They leave images everywhere and erase them too... nobody knows what medium they use. Faerie dust?

      Ask @the_faerie_king what he knows about it. I'm sure you will get confirmation.

  11. Hi Rosa
    Do you think the image could have been made with natural SEPIA from the CUTTLEFISH? That is what I think at present. There are watermarks on the SHROUD. I wonder if the SEPIA from the CUTTLEFISH was mixed with SEAWATER as CHLORINE and SODIUM have reportedly been found on the SHROUD. As you will know, SEAWATER is made up of sodium and chlorine.

    1. It's possible of course.

      What we know now and something I wasn't aware of at the time, is that the linen has been shown to have been prepared with gesso. This is done to a fabric which needs to be kept supple after painting and not to be stiffened by the paint. There are also medieval images of the shroud showing the body had a loin-cloth added, then removed again later yet there is almost no trace of it today. The reason the pigments were not absorbed by the fabric is precisely because that's what the gesso was there to prevent. There is no doubt that this was once a painted image. It was even described as such early in its known history. See my later blog on the subject - Catholic Deception - Pope to Venerate the Fake of Turin. Additionally, the shroud contradicts the Bible which clearly describes Jesus' body being wrapped in two cloths - one for his body and one for his head - John 20:5-7. So, proponents of the authenticity of the fraud of Turin are arguing that the Bible is wrong.

  12. The most parsimonious explanation is that a 12th century French linen cloth was transported back 1200 years to Palestine where it was wrapped around dead magic man who magicked an image onto it, is it?

    Are you sure you've understood how to use Occam's Razor?


Obscene, threatening or obnoxious messages, preaching, abuse and spam will be removed, as will anything by known Internet trolls and stalkers, by known sock-puppet accounts and anything not connected with the post,

A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Remember: your opinion is not an established fact unless corroborated.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Web Analytics