If nobody believed in superstition it would be unable to hurt anyone


Jesus was allegedly wrapped in the Shroud of Turin.  The media in its non-expert arrogance has fueled the nonsense spouted by Shroud researchers for stories about the Shroud being real sell papers.  The researchers are too convinced that a body really lay in the cloth.  That is unprovable.  Also, they won't admit that even if the Shroud is authentic that it has been tampered with.  They cannot admit that if the body of Jesus was imaged on to the cloth then somehow his hair for example was imaged on after and was done wrong for it looks like it was hanging down as if it were the hair of a man standing up!!  There are many other problems such as the picturelike blood.  They cannot admit tampering for that would suggest that somebody knew how to make the image.  Though we can all be biased, their bias goes too far and ruins their credibility.  STURP and Catholic pro-shroudies are over-anxious to avert any doubts or scepticism.
The Turin image shows parts of Jesus' body that would not have touched the cloth. And there is a light yellow substance that sits on the fibres making the image on one side and it sometimes appears on the other as well without passing through the cloth. This happens mostly with the face image which is another indication that the cloth really just cares about Jesus' face the most as it would if it were a forgery. It is not a contact print for parts of the body that would have been inches away from the cloth and could not have touched it show up clearly. And there would be tell-tale creases. So the cloth has no hard or soft evidence that it involved a real body or depicts a real man, as opposed to a statue or something, never mind Jesus. The cloth is meant to appear as a contact print but it fails. It is meant to fool the untrained eye of pilgrims. The artist of the shroud perhaps made the image vague so help avoid detection or to prevent sceptics in the Church from ruling the day. A fraud has to be rigged up to survive being exposed. Many do. The cloth is really about appealing to ghouls who want an image of death and blood and gore. It gives no indication that Jesus miraculously rose from the dead.
Some think the shroud is an artists representation of what Jesus's burial cloth might have been like. They point out that there is no reason to believe that the cloth was actually intended to be taken for the real image of Jesus. It cannot be proven that the image was even made before the 1300's. Given how much God hates religious error, you would expect him to make sure that the cloth was certified or something by somebody who was there when Jesus died. He said religion is about him not what we think so he will not encourage anything that will get in the way of that. A variation of the artist view is that the cloth is a miraculous artwork done perhaps by Christ himself - it is not his real image or shroud.
Some think the shroud is Jesus' real burial shroud and that he imprinted it in the tomb with the image of his corpse and his blood. These people are forced to assume that a miracle prevented the natural distortion you would expect from such a process, that a miracle put the image on and that a miracle put the blood on without it smearing. That is not science but speculation. Yet those who indulge in it call themselves scientists!
Most think that the cloth was intended to be taken for the real burial cloth of Jesus and bearing his image which makes it a forgery.
This article thinks about the shroud in the light of it being intended to be taken for the real winding sheet of Christ. Is it real or is it a forgery?


Despite all the strange things that seem to be in the Shroud’s favour, the supporters choose to ignore proof on the cloth itself that nobody was ever wrapped up in it. THE TOP OF THE HEAD ITSELF IS NOT SEEN! If the image had been wrapped around a head you would not see this effect. The cloth should show blood marks and images as if it were wrapped around the top of a head. Instead, it looks as if the back and front were put on separately with no connection in between. There should be a connection if the cloth covered a body. It is like somebody taking a photo of you from the front and then one from the back and putting them together with the head on each photo touching. It is not a natural effect when you have a cloth that a man was supposedly wrapped up in and which went over the top of his head.
It is bizarre how the face of "Jesus" matches the way medieval people visualised him. He had long hair and a long face and a beard. Nobody knows what Jesus looked like but we do know he was not really likely to resemble paintings by gothic medieval artists.
The blood on the cloth is not real blood. It is said to be anatomically correct but there is a wide scope for interpreting anatomically correct. Also, it is easy to make anatomically correct blood images if you do not consider wraparound distortion. The blood would be messier if there was really a body in the cloth.
The images show no sign of wraparound distortion. It looks like it was intended for display.
The believers argue that the image was made by radiation. But why can't they settle for saying they don't know? If there was an image of Charlemagne made the same way as the shroud they would say it was a mystery and leave it at that. The radiation theory presupposes the miraculous. You cannot say it is a miracle but you can only say that it is either supernatural or natural but inexplicable or unexplainable. Calling something a miracle is saying you don't know how it happened anyway. The shroud image is not the only mysterious image or item in the world. If the image can be explained by radiation that does not mean the explanation is true. And where are the Shrouds made by this radiation just to prove the theory possible or true? 
The errors on the Shroud prove that if there is a mystery about how it was created, it is still not authentic.
ULTIMATE LINK FOR DEBUNKING OF TURIN SHROUD: http://www.historytoday.com/charles-freeman/origins-shroud-turin

BAD ARCHAEOLOGY WEBSITE REFUTES SHROUD: http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=322
The Shroud, The 2000 Year Old Mystery Solved, Ian Wilson, Bantam Press, London, 2010
This pro-Shroud book gives us some information that draws us to conclude that the Shroud may not be authentic.
Page 8 has a diagram depicting how the theoretical body was put in the cloth. He is laid out in a bizarre position with his head above the ground and legs bent. This is odd if the shroud is big enough to cover a whole body. And the position is clumsy. They would have laid him out flat. With rigor mortis starting, they would have had to.
The Shroud man's face seems to have been parallel to the cloth above it as if it projected rays up straight to make an image. This would have been very hard to achieve and does not fit the gospel accounts where Jesus' burial was hurried. It indicates that a wilful attempt was being made to reproduce Jesus' image.
Until shroud believers are able to explain how a dead body can send rays up to burn an image into a shroud covering it they should not be insisting that there ever was a body in the Shroud.
Page 10 admits that the man's face looks like a mask with eyes like owls. Also, the face and hair look as if they are not part of the body for there are no shoulders visible. The hands appear very clearly but the below the knees fade leaving the upper feet hardly visible.
The clarity of the face and hands indicate that somebody was hoping that Jesus' face and hands, his most important parts, would be the focus of the end product. This would indicate forgery.
Page 49 says that the Shroud shows that Jesus was stabbed by the lance on the right side. We would expect him to be stabbed on the left through the heart to kill him. Wilson says that the Roman soldiers were trained to stab the right during battle.
We can object to this for the soldier was not battling Jesus. Also, what did he stab him there for? The gospel of John says the soldiers saw that Jesus and the others were dead and one of them pierced Jesus with a lance. The stabbing makes no sense unless it was performed to be 110% sure that Jesus was dead so it would have been done through the heart. John reports that blood and water came out. If it did, then he would have been stabbed again and through the heart this time.
Page 28 discusses Nicholas Allen's reproduction of the Shroud and says his method works and the only objection Wilson gives to Allen's claim that somebody used his technique in the Middle Ages to make the Shroud is this: Nobody understood photography back then. But is it not more bizarre to believe that the Shroud image is inexplicable and one of Jesus' miracles? He then cites Sean Heckman who says that it is nearly impossible for Allen's method to have been used in the Middle Ages. On page 29, a further objection appears. It says that had a forger created the image, it would be impossible to explain how forensic experts find the stains realistic. This would however only indicate the Shroud may have been touched to the body of a man tormented to death for the purpose of making the relic after an image was made. There is no reason to believe that this body may have been used in making the image itself.
Page 29 mentions Luigi Garlaschelli's attempt to show that the Shroud could have been faked in the Middle Ages. He used a model coated in pigment and acid. He put a linen sheet over it. Baked the sheet to artificially age the acid. Then washed the sheet and ended up with an image like the Shroud. Wilson however says the new image is very inferior to the Shroud and does not show the different grades of tone. But the gradations of tone could be explained by the age of the original image and the countless chemical and environmental changes it had to encounter over the centuries and by the artists concern to show the face and hands and side more than anything else. Also Garlashelli was making a better Shroud than the original!
The shroud being strange does not mean that it has to be a miracle.
There is no image under the bloodstains. The blood stains went on first. Then the image was put on. The bloodstains differ in their thickness. Sometimes they are transparent. The image would have at least partly passed through if it had been created by a true miracle. The bloodstains do not look like they came from a real body. There would be distortion but there is none. They are positioned as they would be if the image was deliberately made for display.
Scientists do lie when they have a receptive audience. And the Catholic Church has certainly given them that and money. Shroud believers seem to spend all their time quoting pro-shroud Scientists. No true professional scientist would say the shroud is a miracle.
The Shroud of Turin is supposed to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. It would have us believe that Jesus was just impracticably laid in a long strip of cloth in the tomb and was not tied up in it for tying up would have changed the image and distorted it. Supporters make the excuse that Jesus’ burial was hurried but how long would it take to get him tied in the cloth? None. The Shroud was intended for display which indicates forgery and if there are some strange things about the Shroud they are just strange things though some will try and make evidence for the authenticity of the Shroud from them. Sheer amazing good luck and new facts seem to back up the case for each Jack the Ripper suspect but they cannot all be verification. So what we observe about the Shroud comes before the difficulties about how the image was made. We cannot say that the inexplicability of the image – and there is much debate about whether the image is inexplicable or not but there have been successful duplications – is enough to show that it is Jesus. Inexplicable is just inexplicable and not supernatural or paranormal. So we cannot ignore the flaws in the case for the authenticity and accept it as authentic just because the image is strange. Jesus did no convincing miracles so the image is not of him. We must remember too that Simon Magus was said to be the Power of God and was regarded as such by the Samaritans, a sect similar to the Jews, and who was famed for his miraculous powers (Acts 8). Justin Martyr said that Simon could do real miracles. Simon is more convincing than Jesus because the New Testament itself says he had strange powers. He was blamed universally in the early Church for being the father of all heresy.
The debate about the Shroud of Turin reminds one of the bickering and controversy that goes on between supporters of the Jack the Ripper Diary and those who say it is a fraud. Both sides use science and arguments and contradict each other. Read www.casebook.org . Like the shroud believers, the diary believers refuse to give way and admit the truth or the obvious. Far fetched explanations for the problems with the shroud and the diary abound. If something is too hard to defend there is something wrong.
The Shroud would have been expensive cloth. The New Testament says Joseph of Arimathea a rich man bought the burial cloths of Jesus. Joseph had no guarantee that Jesus would be buried or stay long in the tomb if he was. It was normal for hated capital criminals to be thrown on the rubbish heap. Would Joseph buy an expensive Shroud in that case?
The John gospel says a lot of spices were brought to anoint Jesus with prior to his burial. A hundred pounds of spices in fact. If Jesus was plastered in spices to that extent he could not have left an image like that on the Shroud. And where is the residue of all these spices, and that should be a lot of residue, on the cloth? And why are the rivulets of blood on the forehead of Jesus not smeared due to the rubbing on the spices? Ian Wilson thinks Jesus was wrapped up in the spices at burial and the women were looking to come and wash him on Sunday morning when the gospels say the tomb was found empty. If so, then Jesus' body never actually touched the cloth! The spices were in the way!

The real Shroud would have been seized by the Romans, who were investigating the empty tomb, and then destroyed. The modern Shroud does not tally with descriptions of the Shroud from before the sixteenth century the most important of which describes a painting which the Shroud takes pains to avoid looking like, and the image could well have been created by Leonardo da Vinci in around 1490 though the cloth might be a lot older.
The Shroud man should have had blood matting in the hair instead of coming down in tidy rivulets. The rivulets look artificial.

The Shroud man was not dead for he bled after he was laid down. Gravity would not account for all that blood. He had too strong a build and was too muscular to have been Jesus who was a travelling preacher who gave himself a hard time. The blood is not smudged at the back though the man was supposed to be lying in it with the cloth being pressed firmly into the blood with the pressure of the body indicating that the cloth is a fake. It is said that a lance penetrated the Shroudman’s entire body for there is a wound on his back where you would expect the tip to emerge. This would have to be fatal suggesting that the blood was put on in attempt to make the image match what allegedly happened to Jesus Christ unless the cut had nothing to do with a lance.

The man has hands crossed over his privates but no dead man’s hands and arms would have stayed in such a position. The hair is depicted as it would be if the Shroud man were standing up. It hangs down. The hand has unnaturally long fingers. The errors and the anomalies show that even if this cloth is a miracle the man on it is not Jesus Christ.

The Shroud was never mentioned in the early Church or in its first millennium. The Church liked to show Jesus alive and glorious but that was not the reason for the silence. The Church would not have dared disparage or hide away such a precious relic whose existence would show that Jesus did not want all the images to be nice and went to a lot of trouble to track down the alleged true cross. It would have been a good tool against the Moslems who denied that Jesus was really crucified.

It is a fact that the argument that the carbon-dating which came up with a medieval age for the cloth is wrong for the cloth was contaminated over the years by dirt is junk. There would need to be a hugely much more substantial pile of debris on the cloth for it to throw it off so far that it comes up as thirteen hundred years younger than what it is (page 49, Free Inquiry, Joe Nickell, Spring 1998). The pieces tested were thoroughly cleaned (page 28, Looking for a Miracle). The cloth was nearly burned some centuries ago which was given as another reason why the carbon dating could have been thrown off by chemical changes.

But experiments with cloth exposed to similar heat and smoke as the Shroud endured show that this claim is futile. Two independent labs using different pieces and using controls which were dated accurately came up with nearly the same dates. Some things cannot be dated accurately by carbon dating but cloth is different.
Rejection of the Carbon-dating is based on the same logic as used by fruit nut conspiracy theorists.
Conspiracy Theory Law 1: Authority's version of events is untrue, by default.Conspiracy Theory Law 2: Everything that differs from the authoritative version is more likely true.Conspiracy Theory Law 3: All evidence that contradicts #1 or #2 is part of the conspiracy.

The Shroud is very strange in that there could not have been a body inside it to make the image for the image should be distorted if there was and yet the image is composed in such a way that would indicate that a man lying on a very soft mattress as in The Second Messiah was inside it. With all the false trails it gives it cannot be the burial cloth of Christ the Son of the God who does not confuse.


The Turin Shroud is hailed by Christian fanatics as the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. Whether you believe or not that it is inexplicable comes down to what scientists you choose to listen to. But when you consider the rule that you must accept a supernatural explanation only when all the natural ones are impossible it is clear you have to side with the sceptics until absolute proof comes. Many deny that the image is miraculous and say they can explain it. But it is certainly not a miracle as such errors as the man’s hair hanging down as if he was standing up show. Carbon dating has pointed to a medieval origin for the cloth but believers, including “scientists” sneered at the dating from the very start though there is no evidence that the Shroud existed in the first thousand years after Christ. The Bible says that Jesus would have been washed for he was buried according to the Jewish custom – others say the custom was for criminals to be buried with their blood. Obviously the Bible is referring to the general custom of washing. Jesus did make a point of debunking Jewish traditions that were not scriptural but he would have had no problem with the washing – that was only decency. Also the Shroud man does not have distorted bloodstains and Jesus would have had them for spices were used and rubbed into his body. We should have a body that was all red with the blood rubbed all over in the spices and ointments but the Shroud shows the opposite. The perfect physique of the Shroud man does not fit Jesus who lived rough and who should have been malnourished. The man bled into the Shroud – dead men don’t do that – a bit maybe which is not really bleeding but just blood seeping out by gravity but not to the extent that the Shroud man did! - which shows the Shroud was created to indicate that Jesus was not dead at all. Probably that is why the image was made so subtle to keep the Church wondering what it was to give it a chance of becoming popular enough so that the Church would have to come to terms with the existence of the cloth. Otherwise the Church would have come down too hard too soon and the Shroud would have ended up on a pyre.
Even if the cloth is strange and inexplicable and even if there is real blood on it, it still does not give us any reason to think these effects came from a body. The image does not carry the huge distortions that would be seen if a body had lain in it and imprinted the images. The image has nothing to do with proving the existence or resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine, Raymond E Brown, Paulist Press, New York, 1985
Free Inquiry, Spring 1998, Vol 18, No 2, Article by Joe Nickell, Council for Secular Humanism, Amherst New York
From Fasting Saints to Anorexic Girls, Walter Vandereycken and Ron van Deth, Athlone Press, London, 1996
Holy Faces, Secret Places, Ian Wilson, Corgi, London, 1992
Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, Joe Nickell, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1987
Jesus Lived in India, Holger Kersten, Element, Dorset, 1994
Looking for a Miracle, Joe Nickell, Prometheus Books, New York, 1993
Miracles, Ronald A Knox, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1937
Sceptical Inquirer 9/10 2001 Vol 25, No 5, Article by Joe Nickell, CSIOCP, Amherst New York
Relics, The Society for Irish Church Missions, Bachelor’s Walk, Dublin
The Blood and The Shroud, Ian Wilson, Orion, London, 1999
The Book of Miracles, Stuart Gordon, Headline, London, 1996
The Divine Deception, Keith Laidler, Headline, London, 2000
The DNA of God?, Leoncio A Garza-Valdes, Doubleday, 1999
The Historical Evidence for Jesus, G A Wells, Prometheus Books, New York, 1988
The Holy Shroud and Four Visions, Rev Patrick O Connell and Rev Charles Carty, TAN, Illinois, 1974
The Image on the Shroud, Nello Ballosino, St Paul’s, London, 1998
The Jesus Conspiracy, Holger Kersten amd Elmar R Gruber, Element, Dorset, 1995
The Jesus Relics, From the Holy Grail to the Turin Shroud, Joe Nickell, The History Press, Gloucestershire, 2008
The Second Messiah, Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas, Arrow, London, 1998
The Shroud, The 2000 Year Old Mystery Solved, Ian Wilson, Bantam Press, London, 2010
The Skeptic’s Guide to the Paranormal, Lynne Kelly, Allen & Unwin, Australia, 2004
The Turin Shroud is Genuine, Rodney Hoare, Souvenir Press, London, 1998
The Turin Shroud, Ian Wilson, Penguin Books, Middlesex, 1979
Turin Shroud, Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, BCA, London, 1994
Verdict on the Shroud, Kenneth E Stevenson and Gary R Habermas, Servant Publications, Ann Arbour, Michigan, 1981