Skip to comments.What factors point to the Turin Shroud being a fake?
Posted on 03/15/2020 1:20:58 PM PDT by annalex
From its first recorded exhibition in France in 1357, this cloth has been the object of mass veneration on the one hand, and scorn on the other.
Appearing as it did in an age of unparalleled relic-mongering and forgery and, if genuine, lacking documentation of its whereabouts for 1,300 years, the Shroud would certainly have long ago been consigned to the ranks of spurious relics (along with several other shrouds with similar claims) were it not for the extraordinary image it bears.
The Shroud of Turin has a double imagethat is, a superficial discoloration on the front surface of the clothclosest to the bodyand a fainter image on the back surface of the clothfurthest from the body. Both images correspond to each other anatomically
However, since the image is superficial and doesnt soak through the fibers, there is no discoloration on the fibers between the front surface and back surface of the cloth . Chemical and vapor explanations of this double image are inadequate, because none of them can explain [this] .
In order for chemicals or vapors to reach the back surface of the cloth, they would have to go through the cloth leaving an obvious residue in the process. There isnt any. 
That image is a 3-dimensional image that is distributed on parts of the cloth that did not come into contact with the corpse. It is a photographic negative, and no one knows how that could have been made 500 years before photography.
You can see inside the body, like an x-ray. The process that formed the image recorded both the inside of the hand (the skeleton) and the outside of the hand (the flesh surrounding the skeleton) at the same time.
The cloth is peppered all over in real blood.
Probably the single most significant fact about the shroud is that its image has never been fully duplicated.
Scientists and artists have worked overtime, and have shown no lack of imagination in attempting to recreate the image and demonstrate how it was done using corpses, spices, herbs, multiple kinds of paint, metal, cameras, projectors, radiation, lasers, various explosive releases of energythe list is almost endlessyet none have ever succeded. 
The technique used to make the shroud remains unknown. 
In a statement which may not be as hyperbolic as it seems, Walsh (1963:8) observed: "The Shroud of Turin is either the most awesome and instructive relic in existence... or it is one of the most ingenious, most unbelievably clever, products of the human mind and hand on record."
Clearly, every remote possibility of forgery, hoax, accident, or combination thereof must be examined before a firm archaeological/historical judgement on this artifact can be proffered. 
But that includes every bit of scientific data, not just some, with all of it weighed appropriately, not chosen to support a particular point of view.
Im afraid that eliminates most of what Spencer wrote on this subject.
What factors point to the Turin Shroud being a fake?
There is really only the onethe Carbon-14 dating. Its being questioned, but so far, it still stands.
None of rest of these that Spencer attempts to pile on are valid.
This is a scholarly and massive response written by Jenny Hawkins on Quora. I only posted the CONCLUSIONS. Read the entire post here: What factors point to the Turin Shroud being a fake?
Carbon 14 picked up the soot from a previous fire and/or the sample allowed by the Vatican around the edge was from a very old repair where materials were added.
If you want on or off the Shroud of Turin Ping List, Freepmail me.
Ive studied this extensively. I agree with Hawkins debunking if the debunking. A few other points in favor of authenticity: 1. I think that the shroud, including the herringbone pattern,is plainly depicted in the Pray Codex, circa 1200, before the earliest C14 date. 2. The studies of pollen grains showing pollen from plants along the believed route of the shroud over the centuries: Israel, Asia Minor, Constantinople, Greece, France, Italy. Prevailing winds in the Mediterranean basin are westerly so there is no way that pollen from Israel could have migrated to Europe to deposit on the cloth. 3. Even beyond the other visual phenomena, in the photos I can see what is interpreted as a coin in the anatomical right eye. Its identical to a certain type of coin issued by Pontius Pilate, and in fact there exist examples of a subset of the coin that has a misspelling. The image on the shroud is one of these. That level of detail by a forger is literally impossible to contemplate
Very common to fake stuff about Jesus starting around 100 AD or so. If you had an artifact, (fake or real) then it brought more parishioners to your church which always meant more money.
The same holds true with the Shroud of Turin. I don't know if it's real. I choose to believe that it is. So many of the debunking arguments have been debunked. Does that make me right? Perish the thought. I wasn't there when it was weaved.
It's always so easy to tell people, in matters of faith, that they are dolts and rubes. I find the faithless to be a tedious lot.
Thank you. The analysis you point to is detailed and credible.
That image is "burnt" not painted and was photographed twenty feet away.
One other detail anti-Shroud people fail to notice or just blow off: There are nail prints in the wrist not the palm as ALL paintings and statues show.
No, the C14 test has been falsified in several peer-reviewed scientific and statistical mathematical journal articles which demonstrate the test sampling was flawed from the beginning. The test samples failed the Chi-square statistical test which is a standard C14 test used to demonstrate that the sample is homogenous with the item being sampled. The sub-samples cut from a single master sample cut from the edge of the Shroud failed in comparison with themselves, failing to show they were homogenous with each other! This was a huge red flag that something was contaminating them.
The soot had nothing to do with it, that is cleaned off, but a patch with more modern threads/material invisibly rewoven into original material could skew the dating if there were enough more modern C14 in the newer material to outweigh the older, depleted C14.
Those who dispute the chemically tested findings that alizarin, madder root dyed cotton threads with which had been retted with a more modern method using Alum were found on one side of that area as opposed to un-dyed, older raw, flax based linen on the other, base their disagreement on just claiming those scientists are merely lying, despite the clear evidence presented in their peer-reviewed published papers. Essentially, they wish the evidence away, refusing to see it, claiming it just doesn't exist.
Your flat denial is foolishness until you can duplicate the evidence using 12th or 13th century technology.
Please remove me from any pings of blasphemous and anti-Christ threads.
Signed....a Christian rejecting your false conclusion.
A very detailed rebuttal. Thank you!
Before I give my comment, I will be very upfront that I am Jewish.
Heres my comment: if you need a material object to verify your faith then your faith is not terribly strong. This applies whether you are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or any other faith. You either believe, or you dont. That said, every single person is going to have some doubts, that is part of our nature and has been purposely woven into that nature by God - because if there was no doubt then there would be no free will.
I do not know whether or not the shroud of Turin is what it is purported to be, or not. Speaking as a person of (most definitely imperfect) faith, I dont think that it should matter one way or the other.
Call me a doubting Thomas if you want. Fakery was rampant in that period.
I lean towards the shroud being authentic if for no other reason than it is unique. The same cannot be said for pieces of the true cross or nails from the crucifixion.
The shroud cannot be reproduced. Again, unique.
Does my faith depend on it as others sneer? No. Why would it?
NON believers are the ones who should wonder if their beliefs are wrong.
I’ll tell what was a fake, the Carbon test that’s what.
You couldnt be more right. Lots of fakery. But that doesnt mean this is fake. At its simplest: an image of a person consistent with Gospel discussion of Christ crucified. Scorched, not painted, into the top few fibrils, that is the fibers that make up thread. Not reproducible by any technology we have, let alone that available in the Middle Ages. And on and on and on. My point being look into it and draw your own conclusions, but just slapping the fakery label on it is not supported by the evidence or the scholarship
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.