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.

 

From:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Possible_history_before_the_14th_century:_The_Image_of_Edessa

 

"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.

 

 

 

From:  http://www.livescience.com/history/050318_reason_turin_shroud.html

Voice of Reason: The Truth Behind the Shroud of Turin By Joe Nickell from the Skeptical Inquirer posted: 18 March 2005 06:30 am ET

 

While science and scholarship have demonstrated that the Shroud of Turin is not the burial cloth of Jesus but instead a fourteenth-century forgery, shroud devotees continue to claim otherwise.   In medieval Europe alone there were more than forty “True Shrouds,” although the Turin Cloth uniquely bears the apparent imprints of a man, crucified like Jesus in the gospel narratives. Unfortunately, the alleged “relic” has not fared well in various scientific examinations—except those conducted by Shroud partisans like those of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), whose leaders served on the executive council of the pro-authenticity Holy Shroud Guild.   The following facts have been established by various distinguished experts and scholars: ·        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. ·        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. ·        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. ·        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. ·        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). ·        Although, as St. Augustine lamented in the fourth-century, Jesus’ appearance was completely unknown, the shroud image follows the conventional artistic likeness. ·        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. ·        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. ·        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. ·        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. ·        In 1988, the shroud cloth was radiocarbon dated by three different laboratories (at Zurich, Oxford, and the University of Arizona). The results were in close agreement and yield a date range of a.d. 1260–1390, about the time of the reported forger’s confession (ca. a.d. 1355).   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.”   Also reportedly discovered were ancient Latin and Greek words, such as “Jesus” and “Nazareth.” Even shroud author Ian Wilson (The Blood and the Shroud, 1998, p. 242) felt compelled to state: “While there can be absolutely no doubting the sincerity of those who make these claims, the great danger of such arguments is that researchers may ‘see’ merely what their minds trick them into thinking is there.”   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.”   Joe Nickell, 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 Turin (Prometheus Books, 1983, 1998) and Detecting Forgery (University Press of Kentucky, 1996).

 

From:  http://www.livescience.com/history/050318_reason_turin_shroud.html

 

 

 

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"

 

 

From:  http://www.mcri.org/Shroud.html

 

 

THE SHROUD OF TURIN

RESEARCH AT McCRONE RESEARCH INSTITUTE

 

The Shroud of Turin

According to Dr. Walter McCrone and his colleagues, the 3+ by 14+ foot cloth depicting Christ's crucified body is an inspired painting produced by a Medieval artist just before its first appearance in recorded history in 1356. The faint sepia image is made up of billions of submicron pigment particles (red ochre and vermilion) in a collagen tempera medium. Dr. McCrone determined this by polarized light microscopy in 1979. This included careful inspection of thousands of linen fibers from 32 different areas (Shroud and sample points), characterization of the only colored image-forming particles by color, refractive indices, polarized light microscopy, size, shape, and microchemical tests for iron, mercury, and body fluids. The paint pigments were dispersed in a collagen tempera (produced in medieval times, perhaps, from parchment). It is chemically distinctly different in composition from blood but readily detected and identified microscopically by microchemical staining reactions. Forensic tests for blood were uniformly negative on fibers from the blood-image tapes.

There is no blood in any image area, only red ochre and vermilion in a collagen tempera medium. The red ochre is present on 20 of both body- and blood-image tapes; the vermilion only on 11 blood-image tapes. Both pigments are absent on the 12 non-image tape fibers.

In 1980, using electron microscopy and x-ray diffraction, McCrone found red ochre (iron oxide, hematite) and vermilion (mercuric sulfide); their electron microprobe analyzer found iron, mercury, and sulfur on a dozen of the blood-image area samples. The results fully confirmed Dr. McCrone's results and further proved the image was painted twice-once with red ochre, followed by vermilion to enhance the blood-image areas.

The carbon-dating results from three different internationally known laboratories agreed well with his date: 1355 by microscopy and 1325 by C-14 dating. The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century (see Carbon 14 graph). Besides this, the linen cloth samples were very carefully cleaned before analysis at each of the C-dating laboratories.

Experimental details on the tests carried out by McCrone are available in five papers published in three different peer-reviewed journal articles: Microscope 1980, 28, 105, 115; 1981, 29, 19; Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 1987/1988, 4/5, 50 and Acc. Chem. Res. 1990, 23, 77-83.

Conclusion:

The "Shroud" is a beautiful painting created about 1355 for a new church in need of a pilgrim-attracting relic.

 

From:  http://www.mcri.org/Shroud.html

 

More EXCELLENT information that shows the LIES of the Absurdity called the "Shroud of Turin"

Here is more information about the ABSURD, LIE of the so-called "Shroud of Turin"

 

From:  http://www.csicop.org/articles/shroud/index.html

New "Shroud" Claims Challenged as Spurious Amherst, N.Y. June 1996

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.

The new pro-shroud claims come from a team of four scientists from the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio. The team claims -- based on threads allegedly taken from the shroud -- that heavy contamination from bacteria and fungi may have altered the 1988 radiocarbon dating. The implication is that the shroud might be genuine after all. One member of the team reportedly examined the DNA of markings on the cloth and identified them as blood from a human male.

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 France in the 1350's, owned by a soldier of fortune who refused to say how he had obtained it. A subsequent bishop's report to Pope Clement detailed how the cloth was used in a healing scam to defraud pilgrims and how its apparent bodily imprint had been "cunningly painted" by a confessed artist.

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 the University of Arizona and one of those who conducted the 1988 radiocarbon tests, "We've dated a lot of linen -- including many Coptic Christian samples -- and have been in close agreement with the historic date, within the precision of the dating method." Damon said he is confident his original findings are correct.

The recent study by the Texas team was conducted on a linen sample allegedly taken from the lower right corner of the shroud. However, the Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Giovanni Saldarini, has publicly challenged the sample's authenticity. He stated that both he and the Vatican "declare that they cannot recognize the results of the claimed experiments."

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 Turin."

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 University of Southern Indiana agrees, remarking that in such a case "it would be fair to say that the linen was contaminating the bacteria."

Concludes Paul Kurtz, professor emeritus of the State University of New York at Buffalo and chairman of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal: "Overwhelming evidence demonstrates that the so-called shroud is a medieval fake which never held a body. The new claims to the contrary reveal little more than the desperate will to believe among shroud advocates."

From:  http://www.csicop.org/articles/shroud/index.html

  

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 Turin" is from around the 14th Century.  The "Shroud" is only artwork (that has been scientifically tested and contains ABSOUTLEY NO traces of blood) and its origin has been proven to be around the 14th century.