Shroud Of Turin: What Fake News Misses

The Shroud Of Turin isnt “painted”. Its actually a negative. A 3D image. Since our technology is giving us the ability to test these things now. “But it was carbon dated and found it was way LATER”. Wrong again. The piece taken for carbon dating was taken from a pretty convincing patch job done in the time the carbon dating resulted in. “How do we know this?” Well, if you look at the data, and thanks to some sharp eyed people, they found a difference in WEAVING where the patch area was located on the Shroud.
Not many people can see the difference in weave pattern that is only located at the patched area. Its far more evident under a microscope. The area that was used for carbon dating.
Even the lead researcher involved in the ONLY physical study of this Shroud, who happened to be the biggest skeptic and atheist, changed his tune when this was brought to his attention. You could say “well he had cancer and was dying to he was saying anything before dying.” You COULD say that, but thats hearsay (in court) and to the people who knew him, this wasn’t taken lightly.
But lets take a look at other FACTS that go un noticed:

  • The latest findings place it in the 1st century
  • The 1988 Carbon 14 study were samples collected from a single location. This location includes repairs done to the Shroud after the fire of Chambery in 1352.
  • Composition of the cloth: material of the threads consistent with known 1st century plants.
  • 3:1 herringbone pattern known/documented in other 1st century textiles.
  • “Faults” found in the weave consistent with 1st century techniques.
  • The dimensions of the cloth match the cubit measurement used by Jewish law and custom for a burial cloth
  • Blood is rare AB type+
  • Blood plasma around the blood stains is revealed under UV light. (something they didnt know how to do in the 1300’s)
  • Stains match descriptions of the Passion of Jesus in the Gospels.
  • Blood particles reveal a high content of bilirubin. Significant for two reasons: Consistent with bodily response to extreme trauma (so a dead body could not have been used to create the image). Blood with high bilirubin content stays red over time and does not turn dark brown (consistent with stains on the Shroud).
  • Pollen grains unique to Judea.
  • Roman coins on the eyes of image—minted by Pontius Pilate in 29 A.D.
  • Correspondences with another relic, the Sudarium Christi: similar pollen grains; 124 exact matches to wounds on the Shroud; the same AB blood type.
  • There are four other dating tests & the results indicate a midpoint average of 50 A.D. (plus or minus 200 years) with a 96% confidence level.
  • There is no other known image like it.
  • Shroud is a precise photographic negative (on non-photographically sensitive cloth).
  • Image not produced by paint, dye, vapors, or scorching.
  • Image is restricted to uppermost part of fibrils (cause is rapid dehydration).
  • The blood imprints precede the formation of the image.
  • 3D imaging on Shroud (e.g. bones inside the hand and flesh surrounding the bone). It has been used to produce a 3D sculpture.
  • The only known explanation for the formation of the image is an intense burst of vacuum ultraviolet radiation (equivalent to the output of 14,000 excimer lasers) emitted from every three-dimensional point of the body in the Shroud
  • The Sudarium Christi is thought to be the cloth referred to in John’s gospel as “rolled up in a place by itself.” This cloth, kept in the Cathedral of Oviedo in northern Spain, does not bear an image, but has 124 matching blood and serum stains consistent with those on the Shroud and the same blood type (AB). The length of the nose on both cloths is 8 centimeters (3 inches). These similarities indicate the high probability that they touched the same face: a crucified man who was crowned with thorns. Similar pollen grains are found on the Shroud and the Sudarium
Studies have shown that this image on the Shroud was not produced by any paint, dye, powder, or other artistic chemical or biological agent and has no brush strokes.

From Turin Research Papers:

The Shroud Of Turin contains 3D image information. How can that be, even if it was faked in 1300?

And from our newer technologies, we have been able to take that 3D image on the shroud and take all of the microscopic marks (from lashings), blood paths, even from what the cap of thorns did all from this cloth and show you who laid into the Shroud Of Turin.

So all of this data was staged, setup, (not) painted, though through hundreds of years in advance using technologies not created yet, but still assuming we will have created these technologies in the future, staged consistent pollen for the area Christ was at, even plants ONLY found in THAT specific area, meticulously placed REAL rare blood in the SAME areas that would forensically show someone who was beaten and crucified.

Studies have shown that this image on the Shroud was not produced by any paint, dye, powder, or other artistic chemical or biological agent and has no brush strokes.
If one looks at the location from which the Shroud samples were taken for each of the three labs, it can be seen that the C-14 dates correspond closely to the change in weave percentage. This would resolve the question as to why Arizona’s results were both the oldest and youngest of the three labs.

It is our premise that the reinforcement with 16th century material occurred following the removal of the 5 ½ inch x 3 ½ inch section of cloth adjacent to the C-14 sample (see Figure 4). This may have occurred as a result of the will and testament bequeath, drawn up on February 20th, 1508, by the Duchess of Savoy, Margaret of Austria, who wanted to leave a portion of the Shroud to her church (Wilson, 1998:67, 287).

Margaret died around the beginning of 1531 (BSTS Newsletter, no. 51, June 2000, pg. 43), at which time her last will and testament was executed. We propose that it included the excision of the 5 ½ inch x 3 ½ inch section. Supporting this timeline of events is empirical testing by Adler, which compelled him to conclude that the “missing panels were already missing at the time of the 1532 fire” (Adler, 1997:104).

Since this would have been prior to the addition of the backing cloth in 1534, a more sophisticated patch-type repair would have been necessary to prevent unraveling of the raw edges.

In Figure 4 one can observe several anomalies in the area from which the sample was taken. The first is the distinctive definition in the seam that extends the length of the cloth. It is clearly more defined next to the excised piece, possibly indicative of restorative stitching, as reported by Raes, which we will soon describe.

The second is the more pronounced discoloration extending only into the area that we have designated as the medieval patch. According to Louise Harner of the Albany International Research Company, which specializes in textile analysis, inconsistent discoloration in heat-exposed fabrics can be due to different thread types or different preparations, including the addition of various oils and dyes (Albany International Research Company, 2000).

This observation is supported by the 1982 discovery of starch on a thread from the 1973 Raes samples. Starch was, in fact, used by medieval restorers for invisible mending (Petrosillo and Marinelli, 1996:149). Harner further noted that cotton’s lower scorch threshold, as compared to linen’s, supports the notion that fabric containing cotton may disproportionately darken compared to pure linen (Harner, 2000, August 2).

The third and most compelling of the anomalies is the existence of a subtle vertical seam directly below the end point of the excised area and proceeding down to the section we have designated as the 16th century patch (see Figure 5). Does this seam indicate the connecting point of the patch to the main Shroud?

A blinded analysis of a photograph of the Zurich C-14 sample, by Thomas Ferguson & Co. Ltd, world renowned makers of Double Damask Linen, resulted in their perception that the sample was “touched up to prevent unraveling.” They further observed, “We have to say that we see the twill pattern clearly on both sides, but still there is something different left versus right.” (Ferguson & Co., 2000)

Figure 7: Intensity line C breaks at seam adjacent to excised area and where 16th century patch begins.

In a second blinded examination of photographs of both the Zurich and uncut C-14 samples, European-trained weaver David Pearson, owner of the French Tailors in Columbus, Ohio, immediately recognized the disparate weave pattern and differences in thread size, stating “there is no question that there is different material on each side…It is definitely a patch.” [(referring to what we have highlighted in

Figure 2 as the pink section)] (French Tailors, 2000). He stated that medieval European weavers would typically try to match the original cloth and then hand-stitch approximately ½ inch of new material into the old, such that it was invisible to all but the trained eye. This would ensure the long-term integrity of the material, while maintaining aesthetic consistency throughout the fabric. This type of detail to repairs would be consistent with the wealth and devotion of the Savoy family, who owned the Shroud at the time.

Figure 8: Oxford summary of mean radiocarbon dates. Beta Analytic calculations based on 60/40 ratio (by mass) of 450 BP (1500 AD) threads/1875 BP (75 AD) threads = 1210 AD. This correlates to Oxford’s 1200 AD C-14 findings.

In a third blinded analysis of the Zurich C-14 sample, by Albany International, Louise Harner remarked that “the float is different on either side of the sample” (Albany International Research Company, 2000).

It forms a thick/thin, thick/thin pattern on the right side, whereas the left is much more consistent throughout (see Figure 6). This is probably due to the fact that each side of the pattern was woven independently, possibly corroborating Pearson’s belief that part of the sample was a patch.

Facebook Comments