What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube |
By: Anonymous Muslim
The STUPID LIES of the FARCE called the "Shroud of Turin"
This article will show us the LIE of the so-called "Shroud of Turin". Some pagan christians like to try to show this as an artifact of Jesus (PBUH). This is a CLEAR ABSURD, FALSE, and a BLATANT LIE. Let us read on.
"The Shroud of Turin (or Turin Shroud) is an ancient linen cloth bearing the image of a man who appears to have been physically traumatized in a manner consistent with crucifixion. It is presently kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy. Some believe it is the cloth that covered Jesus of Nazareth when he was placed in his tomb and that his image was somehow recorded as a photographic negative on its fibers, at or near the time of his proclaimed resurrection. Skeptics contend the shroud is a medieval hoax or forgery — or even a devotional work of artistic verisimilitude. It is the subject of intense debate among some scientists, believers, historians and writers, regarding where, when and how the shroud and its images were created.
Arguments and evidence cited against a miraculous origin of the shroud images include a letter from a medieval bishop to the Avignon pope claiming personal knowledge that the image was cleverly painted to gain money from pilgrims; radiocarbon tests in 1988 that yielded a medieval timeframe for the cloth's fabrication; and analysis of the image by microscopist Walter McCrone, who concluded ordinary pigments were used."
So we have a little background info on this ABSURD hoax called the the Shroud of Turin. Let us read on about this hoax.
<![if !vml]><![endif]><![if !vml]><![endif]>
Voice of Reason: The Truth Behind the Shroud of
By Joe Nickell
science and scholarship have demonstrated that the Shroud of
The following facts have been established by various distinguished experts and scholars:
<![if !supportLists]> · <![endif]>The shroud contradicts the Gospel of John, which describes multiple cloths (including a separate “napkin” over the face), as well as “an hundred pound weight” of burial spices—not a trace of which appears on the cloth.
<![if !supportLists]> · <![endif]>No examples of the shroud linen’s complex herringbone twill weave date from the first century, when burial cloths tended to be of plain weave in any case.
<![if !supportLists]> · <![endif]>The shroud has no known history prior to the mid-fourteenth century, when it turned up in the possession of a man who never explained how he had obtained the most holy relic in Christendom.
<![if !supportLists]> · <![endif]>The earliest written record of the shroud is a bishop’s report to Pope Clement VII, dated 1389, stating that it originated as part of a faith-healing scheme, with “pretended miracles” being staged to defraud credulous pilgrims.
<![if !supportLists]> · <![endif]>The bishop’s report also stated that a predecessor had “discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested to by the artist who had painted it” (emphasis added).
<![if !supportLists]> · <![endif]>The physique is unnaturally elongated (like figures in Gothic art), and there is a lack of wraparound distortions that would be expected if the cloth had enclosed an actual three-dimensional object like a human body. The hair hangs as for a standing, rather than reclining figure, and the imprint of a bloody foot is incompatible with the outstretched leg to which it belongs.
<![if !supportLists]> · <![endif]>The alleged blood stains are unnaturally picture-like. Instead of matting the hair, for instance, they run in rivulets on the outside of the locks. Also dried “blood” (as on the arms) has been implausibly transferred to the cloth. The blood remains bright red, unlike genuine blood that blackens with age.
<![if !supportLists]> · <![endif]>In 1973, internationally known forensic serologists subjected the “blood” to a battery of tests—for chemical properties, species, blood grouping, etc. The substance lacked the properties of blood, instead containing suspicious, reddish granules.
<![if !supportLists]> · <![endif]>Subsequently, the distinguished microanalyst Walter McCrone identified the “blood” as red ocher and vermilion tempera paint and concluded that the entire image had been painted.
1988, the shroud cloth was radiocarbon dated by three different laboratories
Those who defend the shroud as authentic offer explanations for each damning piece of evidence, but these often veer toward pseudoscience and pseudohistory. For example, they offer various objections to the radiocarbon date, suggesting that it could have been altered by a fire in 1532, or by microbial contamination, or by imagined medieval repair in the sampled area—even by a burst of radiant energy from the Resurrection! However, none of these claims has merit. Clearly beginning with the desired answer, shroud enthusiasts work backward to the evidence, picking and choosing and rationalizing to fit their belief—a process I call “shroud science.”
Some researchers have even claimed to see—Rorschach-like in the shroud’s mottled image and off-image areas—a plethora of objects that supposedly help authenticate the cloth. These include “Roman coins” over the eyes, “flowers of Jerusalem,” and such crucifixion-associated items (c.f. John, ch. 19) as “a large nail,” a “hammer,” “sponge on a reed,” “Roman thrusting spear,” “pliers,” and other hilarious imaginings including “Roman dice.”
reportedly discovered were ancient Latin and Greek words, such as “Jesus” and
In contrast, the scientific approach allows the preponderance of objective evidence to lead to a conclusion: the Shroud of Turin is the work of a confessed medieval artisan. The various pieces of the puzzle effectively interlock and corroborate each other. In the words of Catholic historian Ulysse Chevalier, who brought to light the documentary evidence of the Shroud’s mid-fourteenth-century origin, “The history of the shroud constitutes a protracted violation of the two virtues so often commended by our holy books, justice and truth.”
Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow of the Committee for the Scientific
Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. He is author of numerous
investigative books, including Inquest on the Shroud of
So clearly this "Shroud of Turin" is a LIE and Hoax. The pagan trintarian christians who contine to attempt to stubbornly insist (WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE) that this "Shroud of Turin" is related to Jesus (PBUH) are EXTREMELY ABSURD, FULL LIES, and PLAIN OLD STUPID!
Let us move on and read more information about this LIE called the "Shroud of Turin"
RESEARCH AT McCRONE RESEARCH INSTITUTE
New "Shroud" Claims Challenged as Spurious
New claims concerning the Shroud of Turin, the reputed burial cloth of Jesus, are being challenged by shroud experts. In fact, leading authorities now question the authenticity of the cloth samples on which the findings are based.
pro-shroud claims come from a team of four scientists from the University of Texas Health Science Center in
A fake shroud created by Joe Nickell
However these findings are difficult to reconcile either with the cloth's history or with prior tests, say shroud experts. According to Joe Nickell, author of Inquest on the Shroud of Turin (1988) and an investigative writer for Skeptical Inquirer magazine, "There is abundant data on which to judge the shroud a forgery even apart from the carbon dating."
According to Nickell, the shroud first appeared in
Other evidence against authenticity, Nickell says, includes the image's resemblance to French gothic paintings as well as such obvious flaws as a lack of wraparound distortions and "blood" flows that are "picturelike" and still bright red. In 1973 the "blood" failed a battery of forensic tests conducted by internationally known experts.
By 1980 new samples had been analyzed by microanalyst Walter McCrone who discovered that both image and "blood" areas had been painted by an artist using a red ocher and vermilion tempera paint.
Finally, in 1988 samples of the shroud's linen were radiocarbon dated by three independent laboratories. Their results were in close agreement and indicated the cloth was woven between 1260 and 1390 -- consistent with the time of the forger's confession, about 1355.
The new claims of contamination imply that the shroud is much older than the fourteenth century, possibly dating even from the first century, and that it could be genuine after all.
However, according to geochemist Paul Damon, professor emeritus at
study by the
Nickell points out that, even if the sample did come from the shroud, its location was far away from any alleged "blood" stains. "This is suspicious in itself and raises serious questions," states Nickell. "The persons involved should promptly and fully clarify the source and location of all the samples allegedly removed from the shroud."
Walter McCrone, who has, he says, "examined thousands of fibers
from 32 different areas of the 'Shroud,'" maintains that the fibers shown
in the team's photomicrographs "did not come from the 'Shroud' of
The notion that contamination could alter the carbon date from the first to the fourteenth century is "ludicrous," McCrone says, adding: "A simple calculation shows that a weight of modern biological material necessary to raise the shroud date 1300 years would weigh twice as much as the shroud by itself."
Physicist Thomas Pickett from the
Concludes Paul Kurtz, professor emeritus of the
So we can CLEARLY conclude that the so-called "Shroud of
Turin" is a clear piece of Artwork and his NOTHING to do with Jesus (PBUH). This "Shroud of Turin" has been Carbon-dated and it is OBVIOUS that
this alleged "Shroud of
Islam and the Noble Quran: Questions and Answers.
The Scientific Miracles in the Noble Quran.
Contradictions and History of Corruption in the Bible.
Anonymous Muslim 's Rebuttals section.
Send your comments.
Back to Main Page.
What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube