EggplantTrent

Has the shroud of turin been debunked as a fraud?

EggplantTrent

Justin70

Believe it was back in October of 1988 the final carbon dating tests were done and found that the Turin was a 12-14th century forgery (95%+ certainty)

I followed the Turin for a long time and found it quite facinating.

ChrisW

check out http://www.uthscsa.edu/mission/spring96/shroud.htm

i especially enjoyed the mummy who's wrappings were 1,000 years younger then it's bones .

i would say the shroud is just a very clever painting (although this artist had to have been a genius), but that's just my opinion.

mfaber

There is a real solid evidence to doubt that there was never a body in the Shroud, it is a medieval painting as evidenced by the following (for the umpteenth time!)
The combined weight of evidence points to the shroud as being a forgery:

1. HISTORICAL FACT #1: No record of it can be found before the 14th century, where it first appears in Lirey, France.

2. HISTORICAL FACT #2: Pierre d'Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, reported to pope Clement VII that the relic "had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed." Clement further discounted the Shroud's authenticity because it did not conform to the Biblical description of Jesus's burial accoutrements, described in John 20:1-9 (NIV). For those who insists on the KJV John 20:2-7 KJV

2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the LORD out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him

3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.

4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.

5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.

6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

Verses 6 and 7 in both versions make it very plain that there was a FACE CLOTH (both KJV & NIV) plus

• KJV--linen CLOTHES<===NOTE THE PLURAL
• NIV--linen STRIPS<===NOTE THE PLURAL
• It doesn't matter what version of the Bible (Catholic or Protestant) one uses, the burial accoutrements of JC are always in strips, not just 2 pieces (a face cloth + one big single-piece shroud)

The wrapping on the body clearly was in MULTIPLE pieces plus a face covering , NOT ONE solid piece and a face covering . Clement VII declared the Shroud a fake based on these verses in John (would not have had a KJV or NIV then).

This goes along with the Jewish practice of that time. The body, rich or poor, was washed and wrapped with white linen strips to signify that all are the same before God, regardless of earthly status (no fancy duds or riches allowed). These burial shrouds are called Takhirkhin (tachrichim). This custom is followed to this day with the exception that the "shrouds" are pocketless items of clothing made of white linen (no pockets signifies "you can't take it with you"). The point here is that there is no such thing as a single piece shroud for the body. This custom (a single piece over the entire body) was followed by Christians and is just one more nail in the coffin of the Shroud''s "authenticity".

Jewish Funeral Practices, a Celebration of Life

Jewish Funeral Practices

3. C14-DATING: In 1988 three independent laboratories dated the shroud to between 1260 and 1390. This was reported in the journal Nature. A reprint of the article can be found HERE
Note: for those who keep mentioning biofilm contamination, this excerpt from the article may be of interest:
In other words, the bioplastic contamination hypothesis of Dr. Garza-Valdes is bogus because

• The samples used for testing were cleaned (wouldn't have affected the C14 content of the linen)
• Calculations indicated that the Shroud, which weighs ~20 lbs would have had to acquired 40 extra lbs of mold/bacteria/soot to give make the date be off by ~1300 years.

Garza-Valdez's hypothesis is refuted as demonstrated in this ARTICLE HERE

Simple Explanation of C14 Dating

4. BLOOD/DNA on the Shroud?:
Shroud enthusiasts will claim the following:
DNA tests were run a while ago, but that just showed the blood type&nbsp;&amp; that&nbsp;the blood was that of a Male. The Catholic Church will not&nbsp;release the&nbsp;Shroud right now for DNA testing because of&nbsp;the concern over the cloning issue.

Dr. L. A. Garza-Valdes started this nonsense with his book The DNA of God? Newly Discovered Secrets. From The Shroud of Turin-Fact or Forgery?
It would be impossible for there to have been blood on the shroud that was identifiable by type (claimed the blood on the Shroud was from a male with AB blood type) as explained HERE
"Samples of what was claimed to be blood failed a battery of tests in 1973. In the late 1970s, forensic microanalyst Walter McCrone, an expert in examining the authenticity of documents and paintings, identified the "blood" of the shroud as red ocher and vermilion tempera paint, and concluded that the entire image was painted. "There is no typable blood on the Shroud, it's too old, and was subjected to heat that would have destroyed such blood-typing markers. Furthermore, the Shroud can't be linked to the Sudarium of Oviedo either by blood typing (both too old for typable blood to be present) nor pollen (a bogus claim by Mark Frei)

Any DNA found on the shroud (if there ever was any) is mostly from the many people who have handled the object and NOT from JC. One thing that is very suspicious about the claim of male DNA on the Shroud is that people who make the claim absolutely refuse to have their DNA tested to see if any of them match the DNA they allege they found on the Shroud.

5. POLLEN:" It was reported that pollens on the shroud proved it came from Palestine, but the source for the pollens was a freelance criminologist, Max Frei, who once pronounced the forged "Hilter Diaries" genuine. Frei'stape-lifted samples from the Shroud were controversial from the outset sincesimilar samples taken by the Shroud of Turin Research Project in 1978 hadcomparatively few pollens. As it turned out, after Frei's tapes were examined following his death in 1983, they also had very few pollens--except for a particular one that bore a suspicious cluster on the "lead" (or end),rather than on the portion that had been applied to the shroud. (See Skeptical Inquirer magazine, Summer 1994 pp. 379-385.)"

6. FLORAL IMAGES: "Accompanying the unscientific pollen evidence were claims that faint plant images have been "tentatively" identified on the shroud.These follow previous "discoveries" of "Roman coins" over the eyes and even Latin and Greek words, such as "Jesus" and "Nazareth," that some researchers see-Rorschach-like-in the shroud's mottled stains. The floral images were reported by a psychiatrist who has taken up image analysis and made other discredited claims about the shroud image. " The phenomenon of "seeing images" where none exists is called PAREIDOLIA


A. Unraveling the Shroud of Turin

B. Debunking the Shroud of Turin


7. IMAGE PROBLEMS: The image of the figure on the shroud is anatomically awkward. The arms are much too long. If someone's arms are positioned as shown on the figure on the shroud, the hands should be folded over the lower abdomen, not over the groin as shown in the shroud. Try this yourself: In order to get your hands to cover your groin in a lying position, you must hunch your shoulders forward and straighten your arms. The figure in the shroud clearly has his elbows bent and the shoulders are clearly not hunched forward.The body to head ratio of the figure on the shroud is 8 to 1, while the normal ratio is 6 to 1. Thus the head is too small for the body. Additionally, the facial features on the shroud show the same stylistic features found in medieval art (for example, an elongated nose).

The Shroud is an Obvious Forgery (why the image is a fake, i. e., the "Alfred E. Newman effect")
Last but not least, the facial characteristics and general appearance of the "person" depicted on the shroud is one of a tall, thin, long-haired European-featured male. This totally contradicts the fact Jesus, if he ever existed would have had to have been a Jew and looked like his brethern, not just in physique, but in habits of dress. The Bible does not give much in the way of a physical description (very telling "omission" this):

• If Luke 19:3 KJV is to be taken literally, Zacchaeus sought to see Jesus who he was,and could not for the crowd, because he was little of stature.
  
• His hair would have been short. Paul condemned long hair on men in (1 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV ) which is why I find the "long-haired" European version on the right so ludicrous.
  
• He was so non-descript that Judas used a kiss to point him out to chief priests and elders (Matthew 26: 47-49 KJV)
  
• The appearance of Jesus Christ after His ascension is very different (hair now white like wool, "his eyes were as a flame of fire, and his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace") in
  Revelation 1:12-18

According to forensic anthropologists, JC was probably around 5 ft. 1 in. tall, had a broad peasant face, olive skin, SHORT curly hair and weighed about 110 lb., Read about this in this CNN article about the portrait of JC on the cover of Popular Mechanics that was generated, using forensic anthropology and the meager details from the Bible. Here is how he probably looked as opposed to that "Shroud of Turin" European fake Jesus (flowing hair, tall==>5' 11"-6' 2", European features):



Does this Middle Eastern Jewish face (left) look anything like the European face on the Shroud(right)?


From science and computers, a new face of Jesus (where the portrait of JC on the left comes from)

8. IMAGE CREATION: Images nearly identical to the shroud can be and have been reproduced in a by natural means, no deity need apply. See Image Formation and the Shroud of Turin (pdf)

Many good links here

How much more does one need to know the Shroud of Turin is a MEDIEVAL FAKE!!!

MortalWombat

It's not only opinion; it pretty much has been established as fact.

From the Conclusions page on this site:

Jack the Bodiless

Also, the image is perfectly consistent with a brass-rubbing from a bas-relief.

So the faker wouldn't even have needed artistic skills.

Spaz

How would dating the bacteria and fungi get the date to around 1260 to 1390 anyway? Did the bacteria just quit growing around then or what?

leonarde

For long thread a year or so back on the Shroud of Turin see:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...5&pagenumber=1

Cheers!

leonarde

From one of the linked URLs:Two problems:

1) they didn't "ignore" that iron can be found in paint; they found that the trace amounts of medieval pigment on the Shroud were inadequate to account for the body image. Just not enough of it.

2) their conclusion that the substance was indeed blood was NOT
"by the simple fact that iron and protein were present" on the shroud but by using the following tests:

Table 5
Tests confirming the presence of whole blood
on the Shroud.

1. High iron in blood areas by X-ray fluorescence.
2.Indicative reflection spectra.
3.Indicative microspectrophotometric transmission spectra.
4.Chemical generation of characteristic porphyrin fluorescence.
5.Positive hemochromogen tests.
6.Positive cyanomethemoglobin tests.
7.Positive detection of bile pigments.
8.Positive demonstration of protein.
9.Positive indication of albumin.
10.Protease tests, leaving no residue.
11.Positive immunological test for human albumin.
12.Microscopic appearance as compared with
appropriate controls.
13.Forensic judgement of the appearance of
the various wound and blood marks.

In other words the STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) investigators who examined the "blood" used every scientific test they could think of to see if it was compatible with/indicative of REAL BLOOD. It was. Those investigators were John Heller and A. Adler. The above table was taken from Heller's book
"Report on the Shroud of Turin" (1983, Houghton Mifflin Company).

Cheers!

leonarde

From the post of mfaber:The problem is: in what way would a historical record refer to the Shroud of Turin ??? Not until it was IN Turin would it possibly be known by that name. When it was in Lirey, France, it was apparently known as the Shroud of Lirey, then the Shroud of Chambery (when it was in that city) and only latterly as the "Shroud of Turin". If we are looking through various historical accounts, letters, diaries which date before the 14th Century we find that there was in Constantinople an artifact known as the Mandylion. It bore the likeness of a man believed by the Orthodox to be Jesus. It was in that city until the city was looted in 1204 by Western European Crusaders. Since Franks or Frenchmen were the largest group of Western Crusaders doing this looting, it should come as no big surprise that this cloth should end up in France subsequently. The Mandylion was in Constantinople from 944 to 1204. Its location before that is a bit more problematic; it was probably in the city of Edessa until 944 (see paper dealing with possible indications of tie between Mandylion and Shroud of Turin here: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/scavone.pdf
.
Cheers!