The Turin Shroud

Those Who Say The Turin Shroud Is A Medieval Forgery.

This is one of my ‘There is no conflict between Science and Religion’ kind of Noms. Only in this case it is almost as if the skeptics are believers, believers skeptics. Let me explain;

We all remember the famous photograph of the blackboard with the dates ‘1260 -1390’ written on it. That was result of the carbon dating. It was a medieval forgery. Science has proved it. End of story. Everyone went home.

Years passed.

‘But I want to know how that medieval guy did it’ Barrie Schwortz the Chief Documenting Photographer of the group of scientists that were allowed to study the Shroud , ‘What were we looking at’.

You see gentle reader the image on the Turin Shroud is a very mysterious thing. Firstly, paradoxically the faint image on the cloth is actually a negative. When it is developed as a negative (the famous image we see) it is clearer. So it is s positive negative.

Next it is not a painting or a rubbing or a scortch. It was done not by camera obscura. Schwortz has said – Even with all our modern technology we cannot come close to replicating it’. They can actually ‘lift’ the properties of it and you get a 3d effect. This is not a mere trick. If it was a painting or a rubbing the properties would degrade not lift.

So that’s the positive for me. Now the negative. Which is really a positive. The carbon dating. It is generally agreed now by most members of STURP (Turin Shroud Research Project) that the snippets taken from the Shroud to carbon date were poorly chosen. Poorly chosen because an order of nuns (the Poor Clares) had repaired the Shroud after it was burnt in a fire. It was a reweave (it took a lay housewife in America to notice this)..

More evidence that it is much older than Medieval-they have examined the flax and because some chemical or other is missing shows that it is between 1, 500 to 3, 000 years old. A time frame that could include the burial of Jesus.

The man in the Shroud looks like Jesus doesn’t he? That’s because the iconography of Jesus goes back a very long way.

It is anatomically correct and consistent with a Jesus’s. crucifixion. Firstly there are rivulets of (real) blood at his hairline indicative of the crown of thorns. His legs aren’t broken because remember there was no need as he had died. There are the wounds in the upper part of his palms which would hold his body. The marks of the wounds on his back are consistent with scourging.

We know from the historical record that when the Shroud first came to light in the Middle Ages the Pope of the time said it was a fake and that it should not be venerated. The Archbishop of Turin at the result if the carbon dating declared it to be a hoax. This present Pope insists on calling it an icon not a relic.

And you have the scientists like Schwortz and others of STURP who have been up close and (literally) personal with are the ones championing it as the burial cloth of Christ. Its a funny old world..

Nominated by: Miles Plastic

85 thoughts on “The Turin Shroud

  1. Psst Miles… keep this under your biritta, but I got a genuine bit of THE cross, the one Jesus got nailed to and carked on, got me?

    £99.99 and it’s yours!

    BANK DETAILS Please sah….

  2. I think that adhesive manufacturer Uni Bond, have missed a trick by not employing a Jesus lookalike to advertise ‘No More Nails’….

      • That’s the whole point. If they tested part of the Shroud that was a medieval repair, the tests are invalid.

        If the weave and carbon dating of the unrepaired areas point to a 1st century AD Jewish burial shroud, you are not obliged to believe it’s Jesus but any other explanation better be bloody good!

        I think atheists are fruit loops by the way.

  3. Looks like my great grandad.
    The years weren’t good to Jesus if he was only in his thirties when he got nailed.
    Looks more like an 80 year old which to live that long 2000 years ago is a miracle. Praise the lord.

  4. Radio Carbon Dating.
    Nothing more to discuss – fact always stands up to scrutiny, religious dogma generally does not.

  5. Let people cling to their faith.
    I had a discussion a few years ago with a Chinese lady who had converted to Christianity.
    Now this lady was no fool-senior professor of dermatology at a major trust.
    The crux of a long discussion was that despite my argument that Christianity and other Abraham descended fairy tales, stole key dates, festivals and celebrations from older venerated deities, also no solid proof exists to give credence to these religions, she could only counter with:

    What is faith? Faith is believing in something you cannot see.

    My counter-in that case all religion is based on superstition and blind faith.

    If it gives comfort to the old, lonely and dying, who am I to criticise?
    I believe in evidenced fact and solid science.
    Conversely, I also believe that we are all part of nature-the only evidenced and real religion, whether we like it or not.

    Back to the cuntings, I feel😚

    • Yep there are many things that are very interesting in life i find/although if theres no irrefutable hard scientific data to prove that its not faked or hoaxed etc then there is no point.

  6. I have a mate who strongly believes that all life on earth started on the exact spot where the city of Zagreb now stands.
    He’s a Croatianist….

    • P.s the Spaceballs colouring book is a Transformers annual and the afro comb fella is Tuvok from Star Trek Voyager.

  7. Looks like a photocopy of Frank Zappa to me.
    I hope a Syrian pinches it so there can be another crusade.

    • Christians just can’t leave this alone. It was proved a fake years ago but they’re so desperate for something to cling on to, something that will give their lives a purpose, that they keep going back to it hoping to resurrect the discussion. It’s pitiful.

      • I’m Christian. I’ve got lots of purpose in my life thanks. I seldom give the Shroud of Turin much thought. My faith doesn’t depend on a piece of cloth. Keep your “pity”, we don’t need it. Save it for yourself. The work, eat, consume, die, cease to exist mantra of atheism doesn’t seem to offer much does it.

        It most certainly hasn’t been “proved a fake” BTW, hence the OP.

  8. Revelations 21.8

    ” But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”…..

    Bad news indeed for many of the contributors to this site.

    Excellent nom. as always,Miles,excellent.

    • Bad news indeed DF, there are many rotten, debauched, lewd fellows and dare I say women also frequenting these pages…fine upstanding citizens like yourself and I need not worry as we are far superior in many ways to these dispicable people. They should be ashamed of themselves. 😁

      • B&WC You are degeneracy incarnate and will burn in the pits of hell. Possibly.
        When the man comes around, taking names it will be no use saying you know nuffink abaaaht it. You will be done up like a facking kipper.

        When the whirlwind is in the thorntree. Need I say more?


      • I repent everyday CC, whether it’ll be enough I don’t know. I’ll have nice between now and then though. 😁

    • Ive noticed as of late mr fiddler you do indeed seem to possess a very good knowledge of the scriptures does remind me of a classic film from mid 80s(when films were films)and not 20mins of cgi and boring like todays’but still

    • The Blackadder by Curtis and Atkinson was the best series. Brian Blessed, Peter Cook and Frank Finlay were all superb in it too.

      The fourth series (the war one) is the most overrated load of cack. Stephen Fry saying ‘Poo Poo’ a hundred times and Tony Robinson going ‘Boom Boom’ is not great comedy. Rik Mayall (RIP) as Flasheart saves the day though.

  9. Holy sheet Miles. This is a very heavy subject for a Monday morning. I’ve just taken my toast out of the toaster to find, guess what? – the face of Jesus Christ burned onto my toast!
    As a practising Buddhist, I can’t believe it’s not Buddha.
    The phenomenon where people see faces burnt onto everyday things is known as pareidolia. Sounds a bit too much like paêdophilia to me.

  10. Oh ye of little faith! The (confirmed) radiocarbon dating gives a period when the lucrative art of forging relics was at its peak. Couldn’t possibly be a forgery, then. QED.

  11. I couldn’t give a flying fuck what it is
    It as fucķ all effect to me. All I worry about to my pension plummeting due to Covid hysteria. Load of bollox fuck off.

  12. I’ve actually seen the damn thing in Turin and it’s crap. It looks like a giant piss stained nappy. It only looks interesting when it’s in negative. It’s obvious it’s a load of tripe. The arms and legs are disproportionate. The forehead is about a foot long, and why would a corpse bother to cover up its own knackers? My guess is some Medieval chancers thought this one up to cash in on the old relics craze that was going on at the time. Sort of like a Ye Olde Del Boy and Rodders.

  13. I like it.
    The burial shroud of Christ? …dunno.
    But if someone believes so, not harming me,
    Go for it.
    Live long and prosper.

  14. A Summary of STURP’s Conclusions
    Editor’s Note: After years of exhaustive study and evaluation of the data, STURP issued its Final Report in 1981. The following official summary of their conclusions was distributed at the press conference held after their final meeting in October 1981:

    No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography.

    The basic problem from a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics. Contrariwise, certain physical explanations which may be attractive are completely precluded by the chemistry. For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one must have an explanation which is scientifically sound, from a physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint. At the present, this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best efforts of the members of the Shroud Team. Furthermore, experiments in physics and chemistry with old linen have failed to reproduce adequately the phenomenon presented by the Shroud of Turin. The scientific concensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself. Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat. However, there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately.

    Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery.

    We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.

    • Miles@
      Do YOU believe its the burial shroud of Christ?
      Genuine question, no piss take, and if so what do you think should be done with it?

      • Is it knackers, MNC. A real bloke looking like that one on the sheet would be pretty creepy. Still, I’m not one to get in the way of a good story. Me personally? I would ebay it, and some fanatic or collector would pay thousands for it.

        Seriously though, it’s been proven that it’s a Medieval era piece of cloth. But how it looks clearer in negative? Fucked if I know how that works or how they did it.

      • Norman, let try and reproduce it?
        Could make a fortune!
        Do flannels at £4
        Tea towels £5
        Bath towels £35
        Sell em at Grey mare lane market.
        Be quids in.

      • Afternoon Miserable,

        ‘Regarding the physical (as opposed to visual)s properties of the image, the STURP team found themselves baffled. They concluded that the image is only microns thick on the outer surface of the linen, and does not penetrate the textile’s fibres the way paint, pigment, stain, or dye does.

        A micron

        ‘a unit of length equal to one millionth of a metre, used in many technological and scientific fields’

        That means to me that it could not be made by human hands.

      • Crushing news😭
        So when that speccy bird outside the science & industry museum wanking me off said “ow its at least 8 microns”
        She was being cheeky?

      • ‘and does not penetrate the textile’s fibres the way paint, pigment, stain, or dye does’.

        A bit like those crappy iron on T-Shirts that we used to get in Blackpool then. My one of The Jam lasted about a month.

    • 1978 S.Tu.R.P. members:[8]

      Joseph S. Accetta, Lockheed Corporation (Turin researcher in 1978)
      Allan Adler, Western Connecticut State University
      Steven Baumgart, Air Force Weapons Laboratory (Turin researcher in 1978)
      Ernest H. Brooks II, Brooks Institute of Photography (Turin researcher in 1978)
      Robert Bucklin, Harris County, Texas, Medical Examiner’s Office (Turin researcher in 1978)
      Donald Devan, Oceanographic Services Inc. (à Turin en 1978)
      Robert Dinegar, Los Alamos National Laboratory (Turin researcher in 1978)
      Rudolph J. Dichtl, University of Colorado (Turin researcher in 1978)
      Thomas F. D’Muhala, Nuclear Technology Corporation (Turin researcher in 1978)
      Jim Drusik, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
      Mark Evans, Brooks Institute of Photography (Turin researcher in 1978)
      Joseph M. Gambescia Sr., St. Agnes Medical Center – Medical analysis
      John D. German, Air Force Weapons Laboratory (Turin researcher in 1978)
      Roger Gilbert, Oriel Corporation (Turin researcher in 1978)
      Marty Gilbert, Oriel Corporation (Turin researcher in 1978)
      Thomas Haverty, Rocky Mountain Thermograph (Turin researcher in 1978)
      John Heller, New England Institute
      John P. Jackson , U.S. Air Force Academy (Turin researcher in 1978)
      Donald Janney, Los Alamos National Laboratories (Turin researcher in 1978)
      Joan Janney, Los Alamos National Laboratories (Turin researcher in 1978)
      Eric J. Jumper, U.S. Air Force Academy (Turin researcher in 1978)
      J. Ronald London, Los Alamos National Laboratory (Turin researcher in 1978)
      Jean Lorre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (Turin researcher in 1978)
      Donald J. Lynn, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (Turin researcher in 1978)
      Vernon D. Miller, Brooks Institute of Photography (Turin researcher in 1978)
      Roger A. Morris, Los Alamos National Laboratory (Turin researcher in 1978)
      Robert W. Mottern, Sandia Laboratories (Turin researcher in 1978)
      Samuel Pellicori, Santa Barbara Research Center (Turin researcher in 1978)
      Raymond Rogers, Los Alamos National Laboratory (Turin researcher in 1978)
      Larry Schwalbe, Los Alamos National Laboratory
      Barrie M. Schwortz, Barrie Schwortz Studios (Turin researcher in 1978)
      Diane Soran, Los Alamos National Laboratory
      Kenneth E. Stevenson, IBM (Turin researcher in 1978)

    • An excellent and well thought narrative. My compliments.
      It was a shame indeed that the Vatican does not allow further research to prove authenticity for the fear it may fail that test. I do however, believe that the image is ( as you say ) that of a real man, crucified and his image imprisoned within the shroud.

      • ‘his image imprisoned within the shroud’
        I like that.

        Like looking into a tomb for me.

        Another mysterious thing-there is no boundary to it. There is the image then it just fades away.

        ‘Tis very strange’.

  15. Apparently some daft cunts have made an exact replica of the thing. I mean, why fucking bother doing that? So there’s more than one now. Is it a Mona Lisa type thing? A fake is put on display while the real deal is in a vault somewhere?

  16. A nice write up. Let’s say there was a Jesus and he lived and died within the time frame which suits the argument it is his image on the cloth. How the image was made is still mysterious, that we can agree on. However, it doesn’t prove anything else like Jesus was the son of god, went around turning water into wine, curing lepers, etc.

    Furthermore, what would be the point of the shroud? Presumably as evidence that Jesus did live and was the son of god? A bit of cloth and no other supporting evidence doesn’t really stand up in court. How about our loveable imaginary friend coughing up the 10 commandment stones, or Noah’s arc or…..well…..having an accurate written historical account of relevant events which doesn’t contradict itself?

    The best we can do right now is say it’s an old bit of cloth that’s got an image of a man on it that’s been created in a mysterious way. That’s it! People of faith will cling to their faith and that’s perfectly OK. The shroud doesn’t prove anything either way. Move on…nothing to see here.

    • Roman Records at that time ( of Jesus ) describe a man of that name as an “agitator”. The text goes on to describe acts that are similar to those recorded ( later ) by the apostles and now form the base of text in the new Testament. Of particular note, the Council of Nicea has text examining the works of James . In that text, James berates the work of his brother. Jesus.

      • ‘Scientists from Italy’s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development spent years trying to replicate the shroud’s markings.

        They have concluded only something akin to ultraviolet lasers – far beyond the capability of medieval forgers – could have created them.

        This has led to fresh suggestions that the imprint was indeed created by a huge burst of energy accompanying the Resurrection of Christ.

        The results show a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,’ the scientists said.’

  17. Just about every measurement made on the piece of cloth is open to question. Haemoglobin, serum albumin… human or animal? Applied before, during or after the rest of the image? The 14C/12C date was/wasn’t taken from an (invisible) mediaeval repair? (It wasn’t). The proportions of the image: strange* or as expected from a C1 Jew from Palestine? Powdered pigments present? Gesso or gouache medium present/absent?

    *bloody weird, in fact, not to mention the difficulty of getting a shroud to sit absolutely square and unrumpled on a human corpse lying on its back.

    Working hypothesis: load of bollocks. I want to see some numerical data and stats to demonstrate otherwise. H(1) cloth contaminated with unguents from snatched corpse, some artistic enhancement with similar unguents, blood from butcher added for verisimilitude.

    Even Father Brown would be sceptical about this one. Heh.

    Still, whatever turns you philosophico-spiritually on.

      • How reassuring. Provenance is all. I thank you.
        An update on the mobile/YouTube buggeration. Set up the crapphone as a wireless hot-spot and it worked a treat so was able to upload a still of the slag in question and video of my mate getting some action prior to his bank account being emptied and his car stolen. Wheels are vital to him because his time in the services has left him with a massive hernia and a collapsible knee. Had to lend the poor cunt to buy another jalopy. He is presently in the Covid queue waiting for operations now delayed until next year. He is also having a battle for his benefits so his well being is all down to the bank of Sir Limply.
        Wrote it up and posted to the site but Admin got all pussy pussy and blocked it.

      • Never had the international impact he should have had. Frank was a maverick and maybe he was difficult to manage. A front line of Worthington and Keegan for England would have been something. I know Big Ron wanted to bring Frank to Man United, but Worthington thought Ron was joking and he signed for Leeds instead.

      • That’s interesting. Reminds me of something I read about Cantona. Someone said he didn’t “train”. He just “practiced” instead. I’d imagine Frank did the same.

        “Oi Frank, come on man, do sprints around the touchline”

        “Nah, fuck off – I’m gonna practice chipping the keeper from 30 yards”

  18. Have always maintained following a nocturnal divine intervention that it is the Good Lord’s shagging sheet. Hence the stains.

  19. The late great Clive James called it right.
    “Religion? An advertising agency for a product that doesn’t exist.”

    • I remember Clive at Granada in the 70s. Him and Tony Wilson (RIP) on the same show. We were spoilt back then and we didn’t know it.

  20. This has been most instructive. I have to say I am not very clued up on these things. I’ve never really been one for religion, but I do like a mystery.
    Especially the historic kind, like the antkythera mechanism.

    Do you think it should be in a museum Miles?
    It is after all a piece of history even if the origin is not necessarily as claimed.

    • Well it’s behind bulletproof glass in the cathedral in Turin Harold. I think the most fitting place for it.
      Another kind of paradox. The STURP team (The Shroud of Turin Research Project) spent two full years preparing for the 10 dsys they were allowed to study it. They created a steel kind if bridge to lay it on. So they were being very very careful. Got there and and its just shoved in a wooden box, a kind of back lining roughy pinned onto the back of it. Schwortz couldn’t believe how poorly it was stored.
      Actually at the time of the project (1978). It was still in the possession of the House of Savoy. Not the Church. Not long after it was given to the Church.

      • The Shroud of Turin Research Project? Sounds very scientifically unbiased. I’m sure the whole thing was done with blind/double/triple blind testing in order to eliminate any and all bias.

        I’m sure that’s exactly how that went down.

      • Miles See my last comment which you responded to on impulse yet clearly didn’t read.

        Diolch Yn Fawr

  21. None of which actually proves even remotely that a Jesus of divine origin existed, or even that a God exists. All it really proves is that a man called Yeshua lived in Yehuda around the time of the supposed time of Jesus and that he was crucified by the Romans/Rabbis/whoever for being a false prophet as that charge and that execution method were incredibly common in that geographic region at the time.

    An historical Jesus and a mythological Jesus need to be seperated because even if Hey-Zues did in fact walk on water, heal the sick or somehow overcome basic, nutritional logistics as it pertains to a fucking fish, then I would like to point you in the direction of more modern, documented and honest parallels like Paul McKenna, David Blaine and Dynamo who seem to have the inate ability to sucker complete suckers in 21st century real time, not just over 2 millennia ex post facto.

    Grow the fuck up you abject child!

    (Keep calm and drink more tea please – DA)

    • Also the prophecies of the Messiah come from the Jewish biblical canon (namely the Nevi’im/books of prophecy) and these books were written by the Jews so I think they are probably quite adept when it comes to all this Messiah bollocks.

      I’d just point you in the direction of this link

      I’d just like to point out that even though I also think that Judaism is bollocks, Christian bollocks bases itself on Jewish bollocks so the two variants of bollocks can’t contradict each other by fucking definition.

      Read, digest, enjoy.

      • Funny the most zealous of the STURP members who argue for it to be Jesus’s burial cloth Barrie Schwortz iwas brought up in an orthodox Jewish home. He doesn’t mention his religious believes (which I like) he just says he is interested in the Truth.

      • The reason they want the truth is because, if what you say is true, they are scientists and scientists want to know the truth and one of the main aspects of science is to falsify a claim.

        I’m not sure what there is to falsify about a claim which can neither be falsified or proved because the God Hypothesis is not a null hypothesis.

        What’s your fuckign point?

      • I would also like to point out that nothing said in the scientific study has made any conclusions. An inconclusive study does not equate to a conclusion.

        I think you are using the bulwark of the theistic, apologist handbook which is the God Of The Gaps Argument which isn’t really too disimilar to the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance.

        I’m not sure who you are trying to convince or convert but it’s a very intellectually lazy attempt.

      • Also worthy of note is that teh majority of scientists are atheist (something like over 70% when polled) so the fact that many of the people on that study came from Jewish extraction is irrelevant because although the Jewish religion is a religion, the Jews are a people and a nation.

        This is why there is such a thing a Jewish atheist but no such thing as a Christian atheist or Muslim atheist.

        Look up the Hebrew terms Am, Leumi and Goi (the old meaning of Goi, not the modern one which means non-Jew) and you might learn something about the Jewish people, their culture and their religion.

    • Derren Brown has performed far more impressive ‘miracles’ than those reported to have been enacted by Jesus, and has comprehensively debunked religion to boot.

      • The only miracle I see performed from a religious standpoint is how they managed to get so many people to believe it. I suppose if people need something to cling to, they already want to believe in something, so are easy prey.

      • Derren Brown has disproved the existence of God? Really? You really believe that?? A TV magician has done what no scientist has been ever able to do?

        Wooooah, stop the bus! You believe what you want and seriously, the best of luck to you, I really mean that. But if it’s my Immortal Soul on the line, I’ll stick with Jesus thanks, not the good people of ISAC and certainly not Derren f*cking Brown!

  22. If the thing really was JC, it would certainly piss off the ‘But… But he was black’ fuckflakes and the BLM mob. And that is never a bad thing.

Comments are closed.